[kpp_kpp]

net neutrality meant that "FreeRepublic" would not have to pay additional fees to allow you to get to their site.

w/o net neutrality any isp or telecom company can block any content they see fit and charge the content provider (i.e. FreeRepublic) additional fees if they want their content on that provider's network.

unless someone explains it differently to me and i "see the light" i have a hard time understanding why freepers are against net neutrality (i.e. status quo, i.e. conservative)

[clyde asbury]

..i have a hard time understanding why freepers are against net neutrality...

If I understand correctly, the net neutrality initiative boils down to corporate property rights. Should the telcos be able to control their own wires, or should that control be given to those who use the wires but don't own them?

[VRWCmember]

First of all, net neutrality is not "status quo, i.e. conservative" but is in fact an intrusive government regulation of what ISP's or telecoms can do in terms of investment, cost-sharing, and other expansions of service.

Secondly, your comparison of the worldwide web w/o net neutrality (actually the status quo is the web w/o net neutrality) to what you describe net neutrality to mean is an inaccurate comparison.

Finally, if you will check out the resources that I have posted several times, that should explain it to you differently. Whether or not you "see the light" is entirely up to you.

[steve-b]

w/o net neutrality any isp or telecom company can block any content they see fit and charge the content provider (i.e. FreeRepublic) additional fees if they want their content on that provider's network.

It's worse than that. Without net neutrality, an ISP can simply drop FR packets even if JimRob offers to pay for premium service if the ISP's boss likes his lunch dates with George Soros more than he likes JimRob's money.