Taking sides on Net neutrality
House Democrats this week lost a bid to enshrine a Net neutrality proposal as law.
Proponents say such laws are needed to prevent broadband providers from abusing their control over Internet access by blocking traffic or charging content providers extra for special service. An amendment concerning those issues had received support from companies including Microsoft, Amazon.com and Google.
But opponents say the fears are overblown, and warned that the proposed legislation gave the Federal Communications Commission too much power to regulate the Internet.
Blog community response:
"While I, and most of the technology industry, would agree more with the Republican position on a laissez-faire approach to business, in this case, monopolistic businesses are trying to hurt both consumers and hundreds of businesses."
"The only reasons the telcos are in the position to violate network neutrality are because they've pretty much been granted subsidies and monopoly rights of way -- and part of that bargain was that to increase competition, there needed to be open and fair access."
"I'd like you to go out and ask 20 different people what they think net neutrality means. I guarantee you you'll probably get at least 19 different answers. You'll also discover that trying to codify a concept as vague as net neutrality into law is a terrible idea."
--Kung Fu Quip