"The specific point of regulating for Net neutrality is to ensure that, no matter what provider you choose, by whatever reason, you'll receive good service for what you pay them." Could I not say that is VERY similar to, "The specific point of regulating for Net neutrality is to ensure that, no matter what provider you choose, by whatever reason, you'll receive the same service for what you pay them.

Personally I'd like to have ISPs providing different service types... One that caters to gamers, one that caters to businesses, and another that caters to the "newbies". I'm sure you can imagine other different types of users as well. Each type of individual has different uses for the net, some people would rather have a half second delay on http traffic to be able to have better QOS for online games (not me personally), another person might want the best VoIP service from their own provider (sipphone, skype, etc), the typical user however would want web pages to load EXTREMELY fast, but streaming an HD movie isn't something they might be interested in.

The point is that not all users are the same, most of us power users want something completely different than the average user (loading a MySpace page quickly). Having government decide what is best for me is wrong. I know what I want/need more than they do. At least when I tell my ISP what I want they'll understand the difference between my needs and my father's.

I never said price was the issue. I think you're misunderstanding my point. The issue is QOS, a topic I covered VERY thoroughly at The Convergence Technology Council 18 months ago (thectc.info). People are making their choice based on price and (stated) speed, and they're expecting the same QOS. If you want governments controlling the QOS (something they have little understanding of), then perhaps it'd be best regulate the advertisement of ISPs' speed statements. We all know that most ISPs "burst" http traffic, perhaps they should advertise each protocol's QOS? That regulation I think most people could live with. But to make all ISPs serve the same QOS, is a bit much. I'm sure the guy working at home using a VoIP client for his teleconference wouldn't like to share his bandwidth equally with someone hosting a Debian repo mirror, a video podcast, or a torrent tracker, and hosting multiple Distro ISOs.

The ISP I work for (don't own), sits downtown in a population of roughly 1.2 million people, we serve 2 states for DSL, and 3 counties with FIOS (15-100mb), and the downtown area gets free wifi. (I used to live in a smaller town (~400k).

If you honestly believe that your ISP will degrade service levels beyond acceptable limits, switch ISPs, regardless of what you think you do have other options (unless you're living in the middle of the ocean, you aren't living in the middle of the ocean are you?)

Judging by the anger with which you replied to my question, I think I hit a nerve, here.

First of all, get a grip. I was *not* talking about Obama vs. McCain. I don't like either one. They are in politics to $erve themselves, just like the *vast* majority of politicians.

My point was that, the way things are, you *already are* a slave, whether you recognize that or not. I am glad *you* live in a fantasy world that has society pressure and no government nor corporations dictating how you should behave, what is admissible or not, what you should eat, what you should wear, whom you should vote for, and what content you are or are not to see and carry over the Internet. But let's stop the "ad hominem" harangues before it gets out of hand...

I don't like the government meddling in strictly "civilian" matters. I like still less *corporations" doing the same. But I can't avoid both at the same time - and that's what I mean by "choosing your master".

Now, I would love to be proved wrong. Maybe I am just on the wrong planet. But here on poor Earth we *are* slaves, until we recognize it and start to work to change it. The change may begin by not yielding your choice to the whims of corporations.

OK, let the flaming begin!

I agree with your "London cameras" reasoning, but I just think it makes a still stronger case for my case against control. Not only control by the government, but *also by corporations*.

Ted Stevens? Is that the guy of the "the Internet is a series of tubes" guy? Well, I wouldn't like him to control things anymore than I would like Bill Gates or Scott McNeil or (who is the AT&T guy?).

And, speaking of AT&T, you asked who has more power, government or corporations. Well, Microsoft resisted a break-up that the government wanted to impose. AT&T is regrouping the Bells and will soon be back to its former self. "Big Pharma", Monsanto, Union Carbide, etc., etc.... do you see the pattern?

I'll leave, now. Happy thoughts!