I’m definitely not trying to make you out to be any kind of radical. You do certainly seem to have no problem with large corporations having the same kind of control (actually more) that you are so opposed to the government having, and I don’t understand why. My point is that I don’t want either of them to have control of the content of the internet, and I believe that a sensible net neutrality bill is needed in order to guarantee that.

The “most sane people” reference was referring to you as being sane. I was making the point that almost everyone agrees that there are times that it is necessary for government to regulate business practices. We just differ on whether we think this is one of those times.

I still think it’s an entertaining debate, and I certainly didn’t mean either of those statements as an insult.

I’m also not saying that *this particular* neutrality bill is the only option (especially in light of those last few links), only that I think we need some sort of safeguard in place to ensure that the freedom we have on the internet today is not lost. It’s the exact same reason we needed to have a first amendment in the constitution. Sure, they could have just taken the position that those freedoms were inherent in the constitution, and let the courts decide on cases in which it was violated, but sometimes it’s a much better idea to add a specific law that clearly forbids that kind of abuse and is not open to broad interpretation.

Something intersting I learned from the second link:

The Markey ammendment did allow for data prioritization. It just can’t cost extra:

SECTION 201. NETWORK NEUTRALITY.

(b) IN GENERAL.—Each broadband network provider has the duty—

(3) if the provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, to prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service;

I’d have to say I wish I knew more about net neutrality but from what I understand I’d have to agree with a “neutrality”. I’d love to see all the future dreams that QOS would bring without NN but who’s to say it wouldn’t come without it. Look at Verizon FEOS, it’s quality internet service that you pay more for, the user pays for it not the user and the companies that profit from the user using the internet.

And I thought that is what this was all about. The ISPs charging internet companies for QOS. In my opinion this is horrible. Putting QOS in the hands of corporations that can afford it only monopolizes the internet. And for Google to stand up and say they want NN is commendable in my eyes because corporate greed would have them say no to NN so then they could push the competition out. Other online application providers would fail because if you could use GMail with great speed and QOS the start-up that pushes a “better” product with poor QOS because they can’t afford it would break all start-ups.

No NN = no progress. To me.

The way I see the internet going would greatly suffer if there were no NN. I want start-ups to create great online apps that change our life, like what 37 signals has done.

Another topic barely associated with NN is the fact we paid for the internet through our tax dollars. All that fiber we paid for and it not being used or being provided to us is something we should also petition. Instead we have cable internet being the fastest ISP which is not near what was promised to my parents or my younger ignorant self.

I’m not paranoid. I’m pragmatic. See my previous comments for how its giving government control. Almost 100% of the time the market is the driving force behind innovation. Extra bureaucratic red tape that may only serve to hinder new ideas and hurt the economy is bad policy. There are already lots of laws that the can be used to prevent the kind of abuse that you are so afraid of. For example–even though the activist website didn’t mention it–I found out that the Madison County ISP that tried to block competition was fined $15,000 by the FCC. Why not use that laws that already exist or find some other solution other then causing stagnation by forcing net neutrality.

There is not a long list of negative things that will absolutely happen. Why do you think net neutrality is the only option? That’s being dangerously narrow minded with a technology that is still in its infancy. As for bad things that can happen with net neutrality. There is always unforeseen consequences when the government is needlessly involved.

I don’t know why your trying to make me out to be some sort of radical in your the last two paragraphs. I think their tone in saying things like “blindly accept corporate control” and “most sane people” are counterproductive to what I thought was a entertaining debate. To respond to them I’ll just say I don’t think this is one of those cases.

P.S. It would be easier to respond to comments if we kept them short and sweet.

Service providers have already solved this problem, by the way. Companies can buy expensive “WAN” type setups from providers which give this kind of dedicated connection service, and that’s where it belongs; not at the expense of consumer level internet services.

2. How about explaining why you disagree. What level of control *over the internet* does net neutrality grant to the government that they don’t already have?

Yes, the laws get challenged in court and overturned if they are invalid or unconstitutional. My point was that there are all sorts of existing rules in place that the government places limits on how businesses can operate (health & safety, minimum wage and other labor laws, etc.) That is all net neutrality is doing.

I think I pretty well debunked your net surgery example, so what I’d like to hear is a description of any situation in which net neutrality could in any way hinder future progress, which couldn’t also just as easily happen if the large corporations were to gain control of the internet.

My point is there is a long list of negative things that can and will happen without net neutrality, and I have yet to see one good positive example in opposing it.

Even if something did come up in the future, as you said laws can be overturned if the need arises. I say that we need to protect what we have now. If there does turn out to be some sort of downside to net neutrality (which I have yet to see) in the future, the laws can be reevaluated at that time in a way that doesn’t sacrifice the very nature of what the internet is today.

It’s interesting that you are so paranoid about any level of government control (which I still argue that net neutrality is not), but you are so willing to blindly accept corporate control of the internet without question. Any negative action taken by the government if they were to theoretically gain “control” of the internet could just as easily be taken by corporations, who would be in a much stronger position of control. As for me, I’d much rather have NEITHER the government nor corporations be given content control of the internet, and that is exactly what net neutrality is all about.

“The market” is not an all powerful force. Most sane people (even diehard capitalists) would agree that a government which can make laws about how people live and even how businesses are run is a necessity. All I’m saying is this is one of those cases.