You and I have a fundamental disagreement over the role of government regarding the ability of human beings to freely communicate among themselves as they see fit.
The extent that government should be involved is the proverbial “shouting fire in a crowded theater” scenario. Other than that limited scope, government has no role.
The extent that government should be involved is the proverbial “shouting fire in a crowded theater” scenario. Other than that limited scope, government has no role.'
The disagreement is over the term "Net Neutrality". I don't care whether or not government is involved, as long as "Net Neutrality" is preserved. So far the ISPs have mostly been all right, although the interference with peer-to-peer software is very troubling.
I suggest you use more precise terms to articulate your view, such as "FCC-enforced Net Neutrality", or better yet reference a specific piece of legislation.
(BTW I guess you advocate terminating the USPS and going the complete privatization route, eh? We wouldn't want the government involved in "private communication"...including all those pesky laws about tampering with mail. Right?)