Since I haven't seen any comments on it yet (which I'm rather surprised about) and since you're an ISP, could you shed some light on Wired's article about net neutrality (http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/fcc-neutrality-mistake/)? I'm just baffled by some of what the article said, such as:
Net neutrality regulations make sense in closed, monopolistic situations. But outside of small, rural markets, most of the U.S. offers a high level of competitive choice. Donâ(TM)t like Comcast cable internet? Switch to SpeakEasy, Astound or SBC, or look into satellite internet.
I currently live in a rural area where we have one ISP option: Time Warner Cable/Roadrunner. But I'm from the San Francisco bay area, where our options are SBC/Yahoo!/AT&T or Comcast. There used to be AOL, too, for broadband, except it turned out they were using SBC's DSL network and pretty much told their broadband customers to piss off. AT&T doesn't give a rat's ass if you call and threaten to switch to Comcast, and Comcast doesn't care if you threaten to switch to AT&T (this was reinforced by my microeconomics class a few semesters ago, that there's no real competition between ISPs). So where's this crap coming from in the Wired article? Are they on something, or do they know something the rest of us don't?