[alexeisadeski3]

>In this case, the freedom of the ISP is contrary to the freedom of the subscriber, so whose freedom is supreme?

No, there is no conflict. This is black and white. I know that HN doesn't want to hear it.

The subscribers freedom is to leave for another provider. The provider's freedom is to charge what it wants for whatever service it wants to provide.

Only one's freedom is being infringed upon here.

[argumentum]

I agree with you on principle, if there was a free market for providing internet services. However, this is totally not the case .. ISPs gain local monopolies by virtue of agreements with local governments.

For example, Verizon struck a deal to provide fiber access a few years ago with my parents' hometown. Part of this deal was that no other provider could do the same.

This impinges on the subscriber's freedom to leave for another provider, so your argument falls flat, unless you are ready to invalidate all such agreements with local governments.

[djur]

The government of the United States has the authority and the responsibility to regulate the commercial use of limited resources held in common. The freedom at stake here is the right of the people to regulate the use of public property.

[super_mario]

Provider already has that freedom. But once I buy my bandwidth for what ever price the telco is selling, net neutrality guarantees that every packet of information I send is routed all the way to its destination as equal with anybody else's (i.e. telco's are neutral and don't prefer anyone's packets).

But without net neutrality, your provider may decide they don't like your packets going to Youtube esp. since they are also selling TV cable service. So they are now allowed to slow down your traffic to Youtube.

[wmf]

Sure, if you don't admit or haven't heard of the concept of positive freedom.

[dkuntz2]

But what if there isn't another provider in your area?