What Net Neutrality Means, and Why It's Necessary

John C. Dvorak
PC Magazine

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 piece highlights the illogicality of the anti–net neutrality folks, with crackpot assertions and general apologies for the state of affairs in the U.S.

Let's first look at one of the fabulous arguments by Kessler (and I suppose parroted by others on this bandwagon): "With net neutrality, there will be no new competition and no incentives for build-outs. Bandwidth speeds will stagnate, and new services will wither from bandwidth starvation."

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.

(Continued here.)