Quote:I'll start with this: as it's purported to mean and as most people interpret it, I'm all for net neutrality. I don't want anyone, let alone Comcast, telling me what I can look at online. If I could get comparable internet service at a comparable price, I would leave Comcast in a heartbeat.

 

But to clear up some confusion, the hesitation against net neutrality (apart from the "more government regulation" claim) is because the proposed plan hands control over to the FCC.

 

Net neutrality keeps being compared to electric and water companies and classifying it as utility. The FCC doesn't oversee my electric or water company. The FCC oversees the radio and cable, neither of which are currently classified as utilities. Turn on ABC and see if the FCC lets them drop the F-bomb at 8am on Saturday morning cartoons. How about a graphic sex scene or full frontal nudity at 8pm? That's what the FCC controls.

 

And no, net neutrality and giving the FCC control won't automatically make the internet companies more competitive and make entry for start-ups easier. Have we gotten any awesome new start-up cable companies, cable channels, or radio stations that compete against the rest that wholly new competitors from the top down? Not at all, and not unless they use a different medium. If they followed the UK model, it sounds like it would work to that end, but I know almost nothing about how the internet is treated outside of the US.

 

You want to treat the internet like a true utility company (i.e., water, gas, and electricity), that's alright by me. No one can tell me how to use water or electricity in my home. But to act like there aren't any legitimate concerns over giving control to the FCC (who can tell me what I can watch and listen to and when - thru my tv and radio, but not my internet, currently) is completely myopic.

 

Here's a look at both sides: http://www.masurlaw.com/3819/fcc-net-neutrality/