Comments on: Wall St. Journal gets it

By: MRT

MRT — Wed, 24 May 2006 12:06:23 +0000

The WSJ is correct in my opinion. At the current point in time, net neutrality laws would be a bad idea. Since their are no serious problems to be caused by companies buying up bandwidth, the only effect that we can guarantee is not having networks that can handle these new video services. As the WSJ says, the main concern should be figuring out how to fund a new tiered internet in a way that doesn’t crush the consumer not involving the government in the internet based on hunches.

By: watcher

watcher — Tue, 23 May 2006 01:09:14 +0000

The demand for reliable, high-quality data is only going to grow, and the infrastructure is going to have to grow with it. If network neutrality legislation passes, then the brunt of that upgrade is going to fall to the consumer. The WSJ has it right; NN will slow growth and hurt out ability to keep up with our ever-growing data needs.

By: Faank

Faank — Sun, 21 May 2006 18:46:56 +0000

It’s tough to argue against upgrading our current infrastructure, what with the services that are on the way and the fact that we’re falling back in the international broadband race. Anything that would prohibit that, including NN legislation, is not a good idea. The Journal has its finger right on the pulse of this issue – great find.

By: calamityjane

calamityjane — Sun, 21 May 2006 16:34:47 +0000

The NYT doesn’t “get” it. The WSJ clearly does.

By: Net Chick

Net Chick — Sat, 20 May 2006 22:19:51 +0000

WSJ does NOT get it. Other technology companies are coming forward to say this is NOT going to benefit the Internet. Why is this type of regulation needed right this second? How is NO competition good for ANY industry?