This story misrepresents the problem, and mostly conveys unhelpful statements from both sides. It does contain direct quotes from several sources though.

Industry rag reporting says it all; the subject is very important but the article isn't.

This issue is far too critical to be served by such mediocre journalism. Basically what’s at stake is the free passage of information. In other words, our right to freedom of speech. Corporate America would love to get its paws on the internet–the last bastion of free exchange of information at the people’s level. Should they successfully seize such power, not only could we no longer afford the kind of services we presently enjoy, but censorship would undoubtedly result. Consider what’s happened to the centralization of the corporate media into the hands of six corporations.

The article presents key viewpoints, but not with a depth that would give a good understanding of the reasoning for those viewpoints. The irrational claims that the free market regulates best is allowed to be stated without critical evaluation. Issues of corporate censorship are not mentioned. Government regulation exists, and is needed; the only question is what form that regulation should take to protect the public.

this complicated issue will be there to be resolved for some time it seems. the story offers responses to the propose bill in the house, but it doesn't analyze or explain these responses in order to help readers understand what is involved in 'free market' or internet neutrality' or even 'regulation' as it relates to this bill or to those responding to it.

This story is middle of the road day-and-date reporting of a very complex issue. Contextual material is lacking almost entirely from the report. Personal opinion: free speech as a constitutional right underlies every discussion of net neutrality, despite the FCC's long abandonment of the fairness doctrine across broadcast channels and the of public interest groups, civil libertarians, and individual advocates to have bandwidth, and access to it, legislated as a public common. As more businesses and government agencies adopt web based service and data availability (online banking for free, in person for a fee; online processing of health and other insurance claims as a sole processing option), the ability of each citizen to ... More »

Average journalism. Attempts to balance to some extent, however sourcing is skewed toward the telecoms with specific name of authorities whereas the opposition is presented as faceless organizations. Also, no specific details of what the telecoms would functionally do to harm the public. A better explanation of the harm to average internet users is needed. It is a very complex issue. "Free market" is an emotive yet deceptive and persuasive term in a soundbite world. Aws an example, the "free market" now "controls" what we wear, what we eat, what we read, etc.

To some people a free market is an unregulated market. The more fundamental question is does a market exist? A market exists if there are multiple buyers and sellers. In the dialup world this has always been true. As we move to boardband the idea of the common carrier is vanishing. We are very often left with one or two sellers, thus no market, thus no free market. If there are no markets there is no need to ever improve or innovate. The idea of net neutrality is to restore the common carrier idea, and thus create a market.

Not sure if a story can be considered fair if its main example, BitTorrent v Comcast, is incomprehensible. Even the link to the item about BitTorrent's being throttled is not clear on what it is that BitTorrent does.

This subject deserves better reporting. The author could have easily linked to the text of the bill in question, but didn't. It is here: http://tinyurl.com/2egbks . Also omitted is a list of co-sponsors, which is here: http://tinyurl.com/2fnfjh . One might expect a more Internet-savvy article from a publication with "networking" in its name.

Is the web different from other industries, lack of regulation has been part of every commercial debacle

Well jeez - I would have like to know what actually is in the proposed bill, you know, for a start. Seems like an interesting subject, skimpily covered in this article.

This is a balanced and informative, though not exhaustive, story on the net neutrality postures prompted by the latest bill Markey is sponsoring on the subject.

This is an extremely important subject. Ultimately, democracy depends on the free flow of information. Some of the issues here are subtle, and defy simple soundbites.

This story fails to emphasize that what is being talked about is a form of infrastructure. "Common Carriers" should be open to all. Part of the success of the net has been the ability of the "little guy" to compete for an audience by offering better service. When Network Neutrality is violated, how long can it be before the smaller voices are eliminated by those with the ability to "pay for play."