Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Net Neutrality Really Needed?

Posted by samzenpus on from the six-of-one-a-half-dozen-of-the-other dept.

darrad writes "An opinion piece over at the Wall Street Journal lays out an alternate theory on why we have new regulations from the FCC on Net Neutrality. There is a lot of talk about this subject, particularly among the tech sector. Most of the talk centers around preventing companies from charging more for traffic or black holing other traffic. However, the question should be asked, is granting control over the Internet to political appointees the way to go? Regardless of your political point of view shouldn't the Internet remain free from regulation?"

2 of 705 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Still too vague and too poorly defined by Moryath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "block unwanted traffic entirely."

    If Comcrap defines Youtube and Hulu as "unwanted" because their video offerings conflict with Comcrap's crappy, underfilled, looks-like-crap streaming video and extortionately-priced cable tv "services", your statement makes no sense at all.

    And that's pretty much what Comcrap and TW have been setting up to do.

  2. Re:Still too vague and too poorly defined by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    you can choose

    Is that what you think? The whole point of the anti-net neutrality agenda is to make sure we can't choose.

    We've got a lot more influence over government than we do over the top two telcos.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.