[IBM]

Why is that a concern to me though (I'm representing the public)? Net neutrality proponents regularly couch their rhetoric in being an issue for the public's interest. To me it seems like one industry (tech/web companies) jockeying over another industry (telcos/cable) to accrue the benefits/cost savings to themselves. Start ups and other businesses that exist on the web don't like the idea of sponsored data because it could possibly raise their costs of doing business, but again why is that something the public should care about and that government should step in to prevent? No one is providing Jolla with protections or subsidies to better compete with Apple or Samsung, but yet the web companies in pushing for net neutrality (and waging a great PR campaign that enlists the greater public to their side) are essentially asking for one. Maybe your music start up will have to pay carriers to better compete with Spotify or Apple, that's really your problem and perhaps you'll have to suck up the additional operating expense.

[Touche]

The free flow of information, opinion, and art is in the public's interest.

[IBM]

If that vague standard was the objective, we'd be better off subsidizing all the newspapers.

[sroerick]

I'm not necessarily saying that the carriers should regulate. I'm just saying that T-Mobile just lost every bit of goodwill that they had earned by becoming a "european" style carrier.

I don't own a smart phone, I don't stream music. I listen to free or libre music mostly.

I think the entire Net Neutrality is based on a stupid and foolish assumption that we have to stream (or more accurately, download and delete) entertainment.

[_up]

Because without Net neutrality we are going back to the AOL closed Network Model of the 90s where everyone has to use the services the ISP thinks are right for you and with prices they decided are fair. Nobody in their right mind wants that! Unless you are an ISP or bribed politician of course.