I think his point in the article is that it is a double-edged sword. Yes it is bad to allow ISPs to "discriminate" and throttle, but on the other hand, if we get FCC and regulation involved, government bureaucracy will bring the Internet to its knees, and I agree.
I think everyone, including the writer of the article agrees that ISPs shouldn't be able to interfere with traffic they way they have, but the solution is a tricky one. Government regulation isn't the way to go. so what else is there? The solution that Comcast and BitTorrent came up with worked, they settled as businesses in court, without the government.
I for one do not want the FCC, or any other government regulatory body, to turn the Internet into the same pussified wing-clipped entity that, for instance, the broadcast radio industry has turned into.
Slashdot Mirror
Your "virtual browser" is running on top of your hypervisor that's installed into your machine?
I think his point in the article is that it is a double-edged sword. Yes it is bad to allow ISPs to "discriminate" and throttle, but on the other hand, if we get FCC and regulation involved, government bureaucracy will bring the Internet to its knees, and I agree. I think everyone, including the writer of the article agrees that ISPs shouldn't be able to interfere with traffic they way they have, but the solution is a tricky one. Government regulation isn't the way to go. so what else is there? The solution that Comcast and BitTorrent came up with worked, they settled as businesses in court, without the government. I for one do not want the FCC, or any other government regulatory body, to turn the Internet into the same pussified wing-clipped entity that, for instance, the broadcast radio industry has turned into.