Here’s the pro:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/obama-fcc-caves-on-net-ne_b_799435.html
and here’s the con:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255734/fcc-regulators-turn-their-eyes-internet-randolph-j-may
Both articles are useful if you happen to be a knee-jerk liberal or conservative looking for another board to nail onto the ideological box you live in. They’re not so useful if you’re actually interested in understanding the issue of Internet regulation. Both share a common feature of most of the articles that turn up on the Internet about topics that hit people’s ideological hot buttons. Their authors talk right past each other.
I used to like the New Republic back in the day when Andrew Sullivan was editor because its authors had the endearing trait of identifying and taking issue with their opponents’ most important arguments head on. Meanwhile, Sullivan has drifted off into the la-la land of Palin Derangement Syndrome, the New Republic has morphed into a dull version of the Nation, and that kind of writing has become increasingly difficult to find.
Meanwhile, I haven’t found any “Net Neutrality for Dummies” articles that are worth reading. If you’re really interested in developing an informed opinion, I hope you like reading thick drafts of official documents.
