Grudgingly, I am not with the GOP on this issue.
And stop labelling net neutrality with government regulation because that is misleading. What if the interstate highway system was administered by the private sector, with high speed lanes for rich fatcats ?
Whether we care to admit it or not, government funded research made the internet possible in the first place.
BUMP
Exactly.
First and foremost, I'm against most attempts of government to regulate beyond what is absolutely necessary. IOW, government is often the problem and not the solution.
Having said this, I'm also in favor of Net Neutrality as it is not government regulation.
Rather, it's guaranteeing the right of the consumer to use liberal (unrestricted/pure) Internet and newer technology (via paying the entry and exit tollmen) instead of junking up the Information Superhighway with VIP lanes and myriads of unnecessary middlemen tollbooths.
Without Net Neutrality, liberal Internet becomes another virtually-exclusive power toy for the extremely wealthy--which is the exact antithesis of what the men and women who worked hard to establish the Internet as we know it (e.g. Tim Berners-Lee, Vin Cerf, etc.) meant it to be.
In short, not having Net Neutrality defeats the entire principle of liberal Internet.
Instead, liberal internet becomes a carrot and stick tool employed by telco executives to milk more money out of consumers. By effectively telling you that you can only visit these sites on this network for this price, they can use less-restrictive access as a marketing ploy to offer "premium" and "ultimate" services for higher rates.
Further, while having better (less-restrictive) access based on what people can afford is not necessarily a bad thing, it is extremely damaging to individuals, education, and small/medium business--especially those who rely on having decent Internet right now and tomorrow finding that they can't afford to pay higher fees.
Many sites that we frequent and enjoy would very soon easily become out of our grasp--as another poster mentioned that if one's stuck with a lefty-leaning telco, you're going to have to really pay to be on FR...
I'm not opposed to telcos charging higher rates for faster Internet or for added features (e.g. comprehensive spam blocking, cut rates on phone or cable service, etc.). That's perfectly fine. But the government imprimatur for your ISP to charge an arm and a leg to be able to choose where we want to go is pure insanity--especially economically.
Consider this: since most of our businesses are small businesses, the effect on the economy would not only be devastating, but possibly a return to an economy rooted before anti-trust legislation (the robber barons).
As a result, many of the small and medium companies go bust. End result: The American economy takes a serious hit which will take years to recover.
Thus from what I've seen, it's a purely Machiavellian move by conservatives to oppose Net Neutrality.
Think about it. Do we really want to be the ones responsible for this mess?
"What if the interstate highway system was administered by the private sector, with high speed lanes for rich fatcats?"
In some cities, that is the case, with toll roads. That is a GOOD thing, as long as the toll roads aren't Keloed into place. And I don't understand how a capitalist can decry that idea. You're really showing your true colors there.