[Yo-Yo]

Freedom Works is a front organization for the Telecom industry that doesn't want it's broadband rates reigned in.

Why is it that broadband costs close to $50/mo in the US, while it is around $15/mo in Europe?

[HaveHadEnough]

The regulations would prevent Internet companies from offering services in ways that they feel benefit consumers most.

The way I understand it, Internet providers, like Verizon, want to be able to make it easier for consumers to open those websites that pay Verizon money, thus making it more difficult to open websites that do not pony up money to Verizon.

I do not think the issue is as simple as it is presented in the article.

[FRForever]

Anybody who knows the Internet thoroughly and uses it daily (as I do, for both work and fun -- yes I am a geek) knows that this is a bad idea.

Vint Cerf, one of the people who actually created the Internet ;) , offered testimony in favor of net neutrality. (And he works for Google right now -- who certainly could afford to be on the other side of the argument if they wanted to.) When people like that talk, I listen.

Today's Internet is a mix of corporate identities and a Stone Soup-like collection of wonderful people like Jim Robinson. How much bandwidth do you think a startup like FR would have been able to outbid CNN for if packet priorities were based on how much the content provider could pay?

[mysterio]

This article sounds like bunk. I trust industry shills about as much as I trust government.

They just want to price startups out of the game.

[ChadGore]

I just do not buy into this whole thing.

Google is excite.com dejour and they do not need "help" from the any government.

Google/excite.com/netscape.com will make billions pushing objects, and their Peers have a responsibility to IP shape and charge them accordingly.

The VCs (Kliner/Perkins?) that pumped and dumped Netscape in the 90s will be run up on fraud charges when Google moves into the dump stage, and then everything will be "neutral".