[amikula]

From the original comment: > Problem 1: ISPs trying to charge to (de)prioritize packets. > Problem 2: The two biggest ISPs suck, and should be broken up, and/or it should be mandated that competition is much easier.

My point is that problem 1 is only a "problem" because of problem 2. If it's easy for new competitors to enter the market (which I think addresses the main complaint about charging for traffic), then "problem 1" is not a problem. It may well be the case that you can't solve the competition problem without solving the pay-for-traffic "problem", but the competition problem is the only one that matters on its own.

If Comcast wants to charge Netflix for their traffic, let them go ahead. This country used to have antitrust laws that should be perfectly sufficient to take Comcast to court and break them up if the case can be made that they're doing it to punish competition and promote their own services.

I can see the case that sometimes it makes sense and is fair to charge big users, and that sometimes this behavior can be abused to harm competition. My worry is that Net Neutrality is a sledgehammer we don't really need.

[lotsofmangos]

Problem 2 will go away fairly quickly if the two biggest ISP's do not invest in their infrastructure as they will create a situation where it is easy to get leapfrogged by other players. Net neutrality curbs an aspect of piss taking and bad behaviour that is both current and proven and is merely a law to abide by for all players, whereas breaking up independent companies is surely far more of a sledgehammer, and one that should only be used as a last resort if legislation fails.