Recently at Net Neutrality For Dummies


Al Gore says that legislation ensuring "net neutrality" is "needed for the revitalization of American democracy." Techno-vegan Moby says without it, the "egalitarian" Internet would disappear. Even Mallory from Family Ties, Justine Bateman, thinks "the freedom to access the site of any organization from Planned Parenthood to the Christian Coalition is going to end."

But just what the hell is net neutrality—and is all that is good and holy about the Internet really imperiled if legislation guaranteeing it isn't passed? Network neutrality is necessary, say its supporters, to make certain that all data on the Internet is treated equally and to protect users from information discrimination on the part of Internet service providers who will slow down or even block access to certain sites.'s Michael C. Moynihan takes a skeptical look at the growing push for net neutrality legislation and asks Peter Suderman, a Reason associate editor who is closely following proposals on the topic, why Moby and Mallory want the Federal Communication Commission, of all agencies, to regulate the Internet.

Approximalely 4 minutes. Written by Moynihan. Shot and edited by Dan Hayes and Meredith Bragg.

NEXT: Green Skepticism About the Skeptical Environmentalist

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Al Gore says that legislation ensuring “net neutrality” is “needed for the revitalization of American democracy.””

    So what’s his angle? How does he make a buck from this?

  2. “That was human error, not policy.”

    Wake up, guys? You believe that?

    That’s exactly the kind of thing that would be happening with this.

    Morons, you can’t deregulate in a distorted market. These ISP’s already have an unfair advantage. Each town only has one cable provider as far as I know, and the same thing is true of the internet, as far as I believe.


    “Deregulation” in a distorted market only gives an advantage to the people who are already in charge of that market.

    And the internet is too important to mess around with.

    1. “Each town only has one cable provider as far as I know, and the same thing is true of the internet, as far as I believe.”

      I have TV access via Cable, DSL, satellite dish, and TV antennae/converter.

      I have internet access via dial-up, cable, Wi-Fi and DSL. You are full of shit.

    2. Each town only has one cable provider as far as I know, and the same thing is true of the internet, as far as I believe.

      Highlighted the key phrases there for you. I’ll let you take it from there.

  3. Umm, is it just me, or does it look like Moynihan was bluescreened in against… a blue screen?

    (Or is it actually him in front of a bluescreen and then they just never modified the background?)

  4. Getting rid of government-enforced monopolies on local cable companies is the way to go. Not only is it illegal for anyone other than Time Warner to provide cable internet access in my city, but taxpayers provided TW with beautiful free new offices. This is yet another example of how regulations breed the perceived need for more regulations.

  5. Check out this informative and inspiring video on why people choose vegan:

    Also see Gary Yourofsky:

    1. I promise not to try to make you eat meat, as long as you promise not to keep me from it. Fair enough?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.