In a recent blog post, James Pethokoukis, Money & Politics columnist and blogger for Reuters, warned about the negative effects that Net neutrality would have on the American economy, calling the move by the FCC towards Internet regulation “curious as well as wrongheaded.” Just as many others have warned of the law of unintended consequences, Pethokoukis writes, “The financial crisis that has convulsed the global economy for the past two years should be a potent reminder to communications regulators that the best of government intentions can create horrible, though unintended, consequences.”
Click here to read the full article.
2 Responses to “James Pethokoukis of Reuters Warns that Net Neutrality Creates a “Systemic Risk for US Economy””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Those against net neutrality like to bog you down in the technicalities of an argument so that they can then employ their “solution” and abstract that solution to the entire problem. Such is the case against net neutrality.
Costs don’t actually matter because the nation and in fact the world become more and more dependent on the Internet every day.
There is NOTHING about net neutrality that keeps Telecoms from profiting at substantial gains.
So what could possibly be the reason for wanting the power to restrict the ability of the citizen to use that all important resource? Why is it a bad idea to ensure that everyone has the ability to access the net just as freely as we have access to air and water?
Net neutrality protects the citizen by ensuring that ANYONE can have a presence online that includes any of the available media technologies at your disposal.
The net is currently a level playing field for all citizens. Net neutrality seeks to formalize this arrangement and keep access open for everyone by law.
Thinking about it in those terms how can anyone be against net neutrality?
October 26th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Whether financial analysts or community organizations, the primary concern is of a much less technical nature. All sides support an open Internet. All sides say they want broadband investment and innovation to continue. We differ on whether a greater government role in the day-to-day operations of the Internet will help or hurt broadband’s essential progress for our nation. Given that the Internet is open today—in the absence of new regulations—we (and many others) oppose introducing new risks and unintended consequences for our economy, for consumers’ online experience and for innovation.