This is what the Left doesn't seem to "get" though. NN CAN be abused because of the stupid FCC. Once upon a time it would have been unheard of to have fines for swearing on TV yet they are common place today. The FCC effectively censors all forms of media all the time. Somehow you think the Internet will be different? Dream on. Both "sides" are in an alarmist dream land on NN.

It isn't an issue of the concept being sound - it is the practical enforcement of the concept. Good ideas implemented poorly by a government that can't keep the post office viable or get aid to hurricane victims isn't going to help anyway. For me the debate over NN is moot. The real debate is can the FCC implement it without corruption or government creep? Sadly, there is little evidence to show they can.

Amen. We already have plenty of laws forbidding business practices most NN alarmists already preach are going to happen. (Or could much easier be added instead of getting the FCC into the Internet) And any observed lack of competition between ISPs is largely caused by the same FCC NN want to hand the keys to. It's a bit of a feel good idea with almost no practical or ethical usefulness in the real world. I honestly don't care what the FCC or government says because it all happens on their whim anyway. The mindless mob grants them the power whether I approve or not. If Government is authorized to prevent something you just handed them the keys to *someday* do the opposite and allow it. Once they are in... they never go away. That is how this works.

I agree, behavior profiling is probably more along the lines of what I am thinking but even that can be context sensitive to countries and races. If behavior profiling reveals problems within specific races or religions it can't be ignored in terms of security screening. The TSA is trying to screen passengers with complete blinders on and I think this mess is a demonstration of that. The loss of focus will actually make travel less secure. (Not that I agree with any of it, my opinion is it is up to the airlines and their insurance companies to figure out who should/shouldn't be on their airplanes and how they police that.)

I have been shrugging off the Big Brother alarmists over the last few months but man it is hard not to see that the current administration is seeing how far they can push it on us. It is slightly terrifying.

On a side note, a lot of this is caused by law enforcement being ordered to see everyone as a terrorist instead of profiling them and using common sense. When they look for a serial killer they look for loner white males because you know what? Almost all serial killers are loner white males. Don't harass the potential victims because you are afraid of harassing the potential terrorists.

I agree, throttling is unacceptable, but why do we need NN? We just need customer awareness. Customers will not accept weird corporate throttling when educated about it... and trust me, it doesn't take many customers ditching an ISP or voicing public displeasure to get them to change. Businesses want to make money and they need customers to do that. We need to educate the customers, not empower the government.
We don't need the Government to step in and enforce NN like they have with the physical roads. (*gulp* Toll roads!)

Well put. "Rights" does not mean other people are slaves to your desires and wishes. It is an abused concept.

I guess the FCC is the answer? lol

And taxpayers helped pay for the roads to your house and work, does that mean they get to dictate what happens in either one? ISPs are paid to deliver information, believing they will deliver less information is a bit of paranoia and is bad business. Awareness is more prudent here than handing they keys over to the FCC.

Agreed. The First Amendment affirms your right to speak but not the right to demand a publicly-supplied soap box. On a side note, it's odd that all kinds of interest groups are pushing NN... Right Wing and Left Wing alike. The radicals realize NN can guarantee them an audience by law - not by earning it.

The only real way to police poor driving habits is via auto insurance. In the long run, bad & distracted drivers will pay more and cost the insurance companies more because of accidents. In turn, the insurance companies and the auto makers will innovate and create ways to distract drivers less. It is a lesson in patience & capitalism more than anything... Government force is excessive and useless in this case. Allow the industry to tackle the problem - creating jobs and technologies in the process.

It doesn't necessarily mean making more money on existing customers. Providing tiered services could increase their customer base. Lowering the cost of entry for a service is a great way to increase customers and gives competition points. It isn't as sinister as it seems... it is good business. Companies like this only make money when people get their service... there are choices.

The "Core of the problem" is government, not who is in control. When a government has grown to a point of such abuse it is inevitable that someone will abuse it. Government corruption exists because it has the power to do corrupt things. Lobbyists exist because we allow government to grow powerful enough to be lobbied. Reducing centralized power is the answer.

That is like asking what books censorship stopped from being written. It's not what they made wrong it is what they made impossible or unlikely. You want to apply NN as a concept without looking at practical application of it. (And who applies "neutral")

The phone system has built in the ability to regulate traffic that the Internet simply doesn't have. (i.e. Erlang model) NN is a physical practicality in the phone system and a near-term impossibility on the Internet.(At this time) And ignore the FCC abuses all you want - that is who you are inviting into this mess.

I believe the FCC not enforcing its own policies addresses how NN is/will not working with the phone system. A law is only as good as who polices it.
One example: AT&T and Verizon and others were implicated in aiding the NSA wire tap in 2006 illegally but the FCC ignored it.

http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1610&Itemid=125

If the FCC can't be trusted protecting their own phone system policies, getting them to police NN and not be swayed by politics and special interests is a dream. A great idea being handed over to a bad heavily lobbied and corrupt organization isn't going to help.

Besides the FCC simply being a bad cop to rely on - innovation will suffer. Land line phone companies have invested very little in innovation and their networks. Reduced demand and income (from people that WOULD pay more for tailored access) and loss of people that think they pay too much for minimum access and just canceled the service - means less money for re-investment in the network. Our phone system has little flexibility to adapt itself price-wise.

Imagine if ISPs were required to support only one dial-up speed initially; Or had no flexibility to price points of entry and no ability to have ISPs tailor non-neutral (paid) content to offset their costs to lower entry-level prices. (AOL, Compuserve, etc.)
One could attribute the radical Internet growth a decade ago to the lack of NN, not the need for it.