[iwwr]

The inter-networks are too important to be governed by anyone, be they governments or companies. Government implies coercion and regulations, regardless of where it comes from.

Not that the regulators won't try, they will be adamant about their "right" to "bring order" over apparent chaos.

[loumf]

My understanding is that net-neutrality is only enforceable via government regulation. Meaning, that without the government mandating neutrality, the corporations would be free to break neutrality.

As is usual, to provide freedom to one group, one must limit the freedoms of another, and we usually use government to do that.

[liquidzoot]

I agree with this sentiment, but have some reservations about government ability to maintain neutrality. As things are, government doesn't understand how the technology works, and are ill equipped to regulate something they know so little about.

[loumf]

The government doesn't know about anything in that sense. They rely on everyone else to make a stink. We decry lobbyists, but the EFF is a lobbying organization. Joining them helps to pass the legislation. Nothing could help them understand it.

[iwwr]

While ISPs can stiff their customers, they have the option of switching. There is no escaping from legislation, however.

If there is a doctrine of "no regulation/no legislation", corporations would have less of an incentive to mess with the political process (less rent-seeking behavior).

Net neutrality, while ostensibly a pro-consumer piece of legislation, nonetheless opens the door for future regulation (and yes, of censorship) of this space.

[metageek]

>While ISPs can stiff their customers, they have the option of switching.

Not really. I'm on Comcast. I hate Comcast. But my only other option is 384kbps DSL, which is just not good enough any more.