"mandates"
Therein lies the problem. Mandates (government regulation) ALWAYS leads to more and more mandates (government tyranny), and it is a short hop from the mandate you describe to "fairness doctrine"-style mandates. In the end I suppose I trust Comcast more than I trust government.
By the way, I only called you a moron because you had previously (and inaccurately) accused me of name-calling. So I figured I'd catch up.
FRegards,
LH
Ok, now see? There you're actually approaching a valid argument against net neutrality in that government regulation of private industry is, in your view, always a bad thing. I am sympathetic to that view. However in my view its warranted, cautiously, as circumstances dictate. ie. We have tons of governmental regulations regarding building codes in this country, specifically requiring the use of inspections and re-bar in new buildings. Haiti? Not so much. They seemed to have trusted the invisible hand of the market just a wee too much.
You don't trust government's laws at all, ie. "ALWAYS leads to more and more mandates (government tyranny)" I think they have a place where warranted. Cable companies, and specifically Comcast have shown that they are willing to step on their customers (ie. mandated yet unnecessary equipment, channel package selections, internet bandwidth caps) because they have effective geographic monopolies in tv and especially internet service. Anyone that says differently, pointing to satellite operators is being willfully obtuse given support in rural areas (my buddy has one choice, cable, and 1 meg service at that) and ISP speeds.
You trust the corporations not to screw us like Obama would IF he could figure out a way to screen sites for content and require each of them to change their content. Fair enough. I don't trust Comcast to not continue doing what they've already tried to do by using their effective monopoly to extort money from sites that don't want their content throttled. And certainly I don't trust Time/Warner's ISPs to not price JimRob out of the market when negotiating the price at which his site's content would be served.
By the way, I only called you a moron because you had previously (and inaccurately) accused me of name-calling.
Inaccurately only if you can prove that netneutrality's name is actually Bunky.