I've said my piece on this trojan horse to get the government foot in the door to legislate the internet. When they are in they will not just stop at preventing bandwidth throttling or preventing ISP blocks on certain sites. When was the last time the FCC protected you from something? How does their record with television reflect on this decision?
Most of it is here:
Net Neutrality
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=342
I'll summarize the juicer parts:
Movement Hijacked and Spun
Creating a free internet via legislation was the point but this grassroots movement has been raped and has had a bastard child. The full impact won't be evident at first and may even be embraced as a good thing to get public support but this ultimately gives government a foot in the door in legislating the internet. How fast they will move to make Net Neutrality a Neutered Net is unknown.
Fear is a main component in garnering support.
There is a very real threat in having a internet that emulates a cable model, the media is playing on that fear.
Talks are already taking place in backrooms of some ISPs in order to come up with a subscription based model for internet 2.0 that will package together blocks of mainstream websites for public consumption like the TV media already does. A 'basic cable' package will be offered as a default and anything outside of mainstream will be packaged as extras for a fee. The FCC is on board with this since it give them control through regulation. Don't be fooled by Net Neutrality, it is a trojan horse to have government / big business control and shape the internet, leaving independent media behind in the dust of regulation.
Competition is key to combating this. If you don't like the service go to some company that can better provide it. I get more into this later.
A Manufactured Battle on Two Fronts
The FCC and Congress are creating a simulated battle with the end result already wrapped up and ready to go. It is nothing but a PR campaign and to support the illusion of democracy like every 5-4 Supreme Court ruling or close vote in the House.
Pitting a big corporation against the government in defence of a free internet -- nice spin to drum up support for government regulation of the web. Don't like ComCast? Switch ISPs - the free market in action. This ruling will hold back the dogs for a few more minutes. Maybe they'll mix up the tactics with policing net fraud, terrorism, kiddie porn and piracy to get their foot in the door to control ISPs.
ISP Monopolization and Corporate Cronyism are the main Issues
Telcos are currently a free market force. Telcos by themselves are interested in profit and not censorship. Unless censorship is legislated or profitable. Maybe the government could make it illegal for sites to pay ISPs to favour certain types of content or limit certain protocols. Government intervention would only serve to legislate the internet by its very definition. Net Neutrality is a clever way to get its foot in the door and that is the very reason they are on board.
This wouldn't be an issue if there wasn't a huge favouritism in regards that kills the competition between these entities. It is appalling that the free market system has resorted to corporate cronyism where the laws favour them and treat them as a person with no regard to any crimes or moral accountability for these soulless entities that are afforded all of the benefits of personhood when it suits them.
As I had mentioned above the only way to combat this is to have a level playing field with true competition by eliminating collusion and regional monopolies of the ISPs. That is the only way the consumer can effectively vote with their dollars and get the service they want at a price that reflect the true value of the service. A service that is becoming more of a need in this world, some countries have even gone as far as to label it a human right to have broadband access. Competition = choice = economic freedom. When everything is subsidized, given grants and publicly funded infrastructure in a system that tends to favour select companies that are chummy with the administration.
The only thing the government should be doing in this case is enforcing the existing competition and monopoly laws. If they are going to subsidize then they have to do it transparently across the board.
Competition is the Solution
Free market forces will allow the public to purchase and support who they want. I would not support an ISP that goes the subscription model route. If it does happen there would be an uproar and new ISPs would capitalize on the demand for the 'old internet', there will certainly be a market for it. Government intervention may very well quash this new start up option or at least make it much more difficult. Television and radio is heavily regulated but we see this model nonetheless.
There is already laws against corporate collusion and pseudo-monopolies why add another layer of regulation just for the internet unless to censor, shape and control it to the government's whim? People may be afraid of an OPEC type model of pricing fixing and collusion by an entire industry but we are dealing with a non-renewable resource in that instance and scarcity plays a large role in the supply-deamnd curve and is easily manipulated. Ultimately the internet can be branched off or seceded with enough ingenuity and know-how and public support (demand) so if it comes to this, regulation will likely kill this option.
The sector has quite a bit of competition right now in some regions. The end user can choose what they want and how they want their service delivered. Bigger companies that want to take censorship funds from corporations and make deals with RIAA. The consumer can pay less and support this or not if there is adequate competition in the industry.
This applies to search engines as well. Google and Yahoo/Bing control much of what is indexed on the internet and control the lions share of the revenue and customer base.
Here lies the choice, let's feel powerless to combat the evil corporation in our free market economy and have the government protect us and regulate us and censor us from ourselves. Or we can support those companies that serve the public interest or if we don't like it we can get off our couches and create our own grassroots alternative ISPs in the true spirit of democracy.
The Government will Save Us from the Evil Corporations!
Government thinks they can better manage health care (they played the evil insurance companies card on that one) than health professionals and they think they can dictate to technology professionals as to how to run their ISPs.
Any time there is regulation there is a cost involved in setting up the system, installing the technology and enforcing the legislation. It will cost us either on the tax bill or on your ISP bill, either way we're paying for it.
When has the government ever saved us from the corporations history dictates quite the opposite. They stack the deck in favor of those who present their point of view and the news they want you to see. I present to you the television monopolies as case and point.