[Alberta's Child]

The author uses a bad example when he cites a case involving AT&T, Sprint and MCI. Those companies were inextricably linked to an industry that functioned as a "public utility" in every respect: local phone service. If there was no such thing as "phone service neutrality" back in those days, then local phone companies would be permitted to cut different deals with long-distance carriers regarding service, access, etc.

There are compelling arguments on both sides of this issue, but history suggests that what is being proposed in terms of "net neutrality" is not necessarily a bad thing.

[abb]

Baloney. Here’s what they want. Human nature never changes, nor does tyranny. Remember, it was the Holy Roman Church that forbade Martin Luther from publishing the 99 Theses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662

The Licensing of the Press Act 1662 is an Act of the Parliament of England (14 Car. II. c. 33), long title “An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses.” It was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.

The Act was originally limited to two years. The provisions as to importation of books, the appointment of licensers, and the number of printers and founders were practically re-enactments of the similar provisions in an order of the Star Chamber of 1637.

Printing presses were not to be set up without notice to the Stationers’ Company. A king’s messenger had power by warrant of the king or a secretary of state to enter and search for unlicensed presses and printing. Severe penalties by fine and imprisonment were denounced against offenders. The act was successively renewed up to 1679.

[Flag_This]

" history suggests that what is being proposed in terms of "net neutrality" is not necessarily a bad thing."

Will it be "neutral" like the EPA, IRS and the Just-Us Dept.? Give the dims 5 minutes and it will necessarily become a bad thing.

[Pietro]

"net neutrality" is not necessarily a bad thing...

The bad thing is the gov. getting their greedy, filthy paws on the controls.

And make no mistake; that's what net neutrality is ALL about.

[VTenigma]

“There are compelling arguments on both sides of this issue, but history suggests that what is being proposed in terms of “net neutrality” is not necessarily a bad thing.”

Really, and many thought the Patriot Act was not necessarily a bad thing either. Please cite me the constitutional allowance for this type of regulation and more so this would be a camel nose tent thing, it might start out fairly innocuous but give it 20 yrs. Regulators got to regulate, enough government already.

Does the internet work, then leave it alone already, lets work on problems as they arise not try to fix problems before we know what they are and unleash a whole gamut of unintended consequences. And who trusts Obola to do what’s right for this country, you can be sure there is a hidden agenda here and it won’t favor freedom.

[Krosan]

Even further. In a bit extreme example the phone companies could start their own pizza delivery services and drive the competitors out of business by sabotaging their ordering phone lines.

Something like that already happened with cable services sabotaging Netflix.

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/

[jwalsh07]

There is no argument for government control of the internet unless you are a socialist yearning for government to monitor your every communication online. Exactly what problem do you think government can cure?