...- . . .. .. ... . . . -. . .. . . - . -.. .. -. .. -. - -- -- . . . .. ... . (Translation)
Reason's Nick Gillespie is skeptical of the commission's reasons for imposing regulation.
Today's vote is a major victory for proponents of Net Neutrality, a somewhat amorphous set of attitudes and policies which generally hold that ISPs should not be allowed to block legal sites, prioritize some traffic over other traffic, or create "fast" and "slow" lanes for the delivery of certain content and services.Well, yes, if the internet is an electronic delivery system for images of cats, the latest generated meme, and calls to civil disobedience, perhaps there's no reason to give streaming video services preferential handling.
Today’s civil rights activists have a much more powerful tool at our disposal – the open Internet. Our ability to be heard, counted, and visible in this democracy now depends on an open Internet, because it allows voices and ideas to spread based on their quality – not the amount of money behind them.On the other hand, in a world of high-frequency traders paying extra for co-location with exchange servers, there exists a market for fast lanes. Will we be returning to the days of value of service pricing (by which railroads and truckers could charge more for expedited service of high-value goods; I had to dig some to get Google to cough up a suitable link) and uneconomic bypass (if the price of regulated service exceeds the cost of do-it-yourself, the moneychangers will spend the money to do it themselves, thus using more resources.)
Good thing I didn't give away or sell off all of my regulated utilities books, there might be occasion to consult them.