[murph-almighty]

This is why you tell people about the consequences of no net neutrality.

Ask people if they like being more-or-less forced to use some companies over others, or if they like paying a premium for online gaming. Ask people how they'd feel if Optimum decided to slow down traffic to Fox News if Fox News released a story unfavorable to Optimum. Ask people how they'd feel if a startup that intended to compete with Netflix was effectively shut out of the market by deals like theirs with TMobile.

Better yet, show them an image of internet packages ala cable. That'll make them change their tune.

[kfriede]

I have no problem with any of the above, IF and ONLY IF the barriers to entry for competition weren't so high. I feel that the only reason we are discussing NN right now is because government regulation has effectively given major telcos a safety net wherein they can make small competition jump through an infinite amount of hoops to service an area.

Free up the protectionism we're granting to major telcos and let the consumer choose what they are willing to pay for.

Edit: Ultimately the consumer must own the "last mile" that is feeding their residence. In that way, ISPs would lease space in the residential IDF to tie willing customers in that neighborhood in.

[fiter]

This is absolutely the issue at hand. The two sides are monopoly + public utilities commission (FCC) or market competition. To get market competition, we'll still have to have SOME monopoly unless you want multiple "last miles".

[chiaro]

Nah, you just have to regulate that line owners must lend access at a set rate to any ISP that wants it.