Since most people can’t repair their own car they shouldn’t drive a car. Which is analogues to David’s statement:

“Net neutrality” is a buzzword. The actual technical questions involved are best left to people who understand the technical issues (hint – if you can’t easily describe the difference between peering and transit [and the relative merits of each], or think that a “nap” is a relevant term, you probably don’t understand the current technical landscape).”

yes David, I think since the majority of people wouldn’t have a clue how to repair their automobiles that they should drive an automobile, because, as you believe, you must be an expert at something before a person can form an opinion. If society was to take your advice we’d all allow “checkout personal” at the supermarket to “tell” us what our change is and just “trust” that they have our best interest in mind. You’re a dipsh.it!

Advocacy group to FCC: Comcast’s traffic blocking defense is bogus:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071101-advocacy-group-to-fcc-comcasts-traffic-blocking-defense-is-bogus.html

AOL charged with blocking opponents’ e-mail:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6061089.html

I’m sure I could come up with a last that would include 2 dozen or more cases similar to these.

Lest anyone is fooled it would be a good idea to understand the finer historical points of contention that makes up this hugely important fight for “the Internet.” Here’s a few cases which would be made even worse if big business was to get its way and be given the “car keys” so-to-speak to the Internet.

And yet another reason to be concerned with communication companies business practices:

“Just so you know, Comcast is a virulently anti-union company. As the Communications Workers of America reports, “Thousands of cable TV workers have, historically, battled an entire industry that has sought to avoid unionization. That continues today at Comcast: with 24 million subscribers nationwide, the largest and clearly the most anti-union cable provider.” During organizing drives, “Comcast uses highly paid union-busting law firms to advise management and discourage workers…”
http://workinglife.typepad.com/daily_blog/2005/09/why_is_a_progre.html

In sum, privacy, fair use and the neutrality of the Internet are all undecided issues which have far reaching consequences for the average person’s (the majority of the world’s population) access to information. If money becomes the inheritor of the information freeways, we will see our open-access and right to information infringed upon.

Think of it this way, until the advent of the Internet as we know it, people of meager means did not have access to the information they do today and therefor access to “education” and the options ans opportunity that comes with that education. Once we set a president and begin to sellout our information commons you can kiss this sort of freedom of enlightenment goodbye. The news channels will become more insular and we the people will be beholden to the information magnates. We can’t allow this to happen, it would be a monumental travesty.

Here’s a decent if not a bit dated book on Comcast if anyone is interested, it gives a good account of Comcast’s endless appetite to control and corner the cable market, and thus the access to information simply for profit and at the expense of the majority:
http://www.amazon.com/Comcasted-Ralph-Brian-Roberts-Americas/dp/0940159821/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195958825&sr=1-1

Buy Rezipas…

“Net neutrality” is a buzzword. The actual technical questions involved are best left to people who understand the technical issues (hint – if you can’t easily describe the difference between peering and transit [and the relative merits of each], or think that a “nap” is a relevant term, you probably don’t understand the current technical landscape).

The “save the internet” types are disingenuous, in that their proposals would keep companies from offering new services to their customers, and they make the argument that this is a “little guy versus big company” fight, when it’s really “one group of big companies versus another group of big companies.”

In reality, the idea that the Internet is something to which AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon provide access to instead of being something that they provide is a misnomer. Internet = group of networks running IP. Therefore Comcast + Verizon + AT&T + (about 15 or so other big ones in the US) = “the Internet.”

Google, Yahoo, Fox, LGF, Kos, and all of the content in the universe != “the Internet.” Rather, getting to those sites is a reason why people use the Internet. Confusing the two is making a category error, and mixing up the map with the territory it represents.

Honestly, if Verizon (for instance) got in a fight with Yahoo (for instance), customers who wanted both would have a choice to make – which is more important to them? But this type of choice is exactly what free markets are good at figuring out, and exactly what regulations are NOT good at figuring out.

This is NOT a free-speech issue – it’s a trumped up distraction from real issues. Honestly, if you want a good regulatory question for the large ISPs to tackle, how about “when will you start performing overbuilding in other ISPs territory so as to end the duopoly of access providers?”

Deal with that question first, and let neutrality take care of itself.