Net neutrality is the principle that says all information flowing across the Internet should be treated equally. But with more people streaming data-rich video and playing online games, the Internet faces congestion concerns. Should carriers be able to sell multi-tiered access to heavy users? Should sites that generate massive traffic -- like Google and Yahoo! -- pay extra fees? The U.S. Government is examining Net Neutrality and its financial, legal and social implications. Do we need federal intervention to ensure fairness, or is this an issue for the market to work out?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Net neutrality is a stalking horse for government controlled internet
we already suffer from FCC intervention
Why would the CATO institute ignore the premise that the FCC has already breached the public trust by handing out territorial exclusives to many of the companies?
This isn't about government regulation, that horse has already been beaten. The "exclusive" territorial regulations need to be repealed, and competition needs to be made available to the customer. Until then, can groups like CATO stop giving out misdirected recommendations.
Even many of the republicans see what is broken about the "regulations" the FCC has put in place.
We already have a government regulation created mess on our hands.
- tomcat2200
September 14, 2008 12:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.