What Net Neutrality Means, and Why It’s Necessary

It looks as if we’re about to go another round with yet another idiot taking on net neutrality. Much of the debate will be triggered by an anti-net neutrality screed by Andy Kessler that’s running as an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.  This article highlights the illogicality of the anti-net neutrality folks, with crackpot assertions and general apologies for the state of affairs in the U.S.

This is funny, since until just a while ago, we had been operating under a de facto net neutrality.  Using Kessler’s logic, we should still be using 300-baud modems since there’s no incentive to do anything different. How does he — or anyone else, for that matter — explain the progress from 300-baud modems to fiber to the home during this period of genuine net neutrality?

It’s only recently that the phone and cable companies have decided to futz with bandwidth, with packet sniffing, bandwidth shaping and ceiling limitations.

It took them this long to figure out how to do this sort of skimping and cheating of the customer. Someone took notice and said there should be a law to “maintain” net neutrality.

• Read here about how Comcast may have ‘seat-filled’ an FCC hearing probing its admitted violations of net neutrality to make sure its critics didn’t get into the room.

Net neutrality is nothing new. It’s the way it has always been...