I am against Net Neutrality. Instead of writing a long post that will be ignored and downvoted I will summarize my thoughts. Also, with all do respect to Shog9 but asking for discussion on this biased forum is a little naive.

The problem that Net Neutrality is trying to solve is ISP charging (or slowing/restricting) access to a given content provider. It is not about censorship, don't confuse the two problems. The issues I have are two fold.

1. Is this really a problem?

The current standard for broadband and mobile data is to charge a rate for a minimum speed and amount of data transfer, ie 10 GB @ min 25 MBs. No one seems to think this is outrageous and gladly pays their cellphone/cable bills. You may not like the price but you don't mind paying for the service. Saying that AT&T or Comcast should not charge for faster speeds or more data is like saying fast food and fine dining should cost the same. Should content providers be except from the same pricing model the consumer pays? If Netflix was forced to pay for more bandwidth they may invest in a better way to compress/deliver digital video over the internet or invent the futurenet.

2. What is the solution?

Making a regulation that says "play nice" is ridiculous on it's face. Is the answer to regulate all ISP's to cap profits at 10%? To say they all must provide 100 MB/s download speeds everywhere? Let's examine the first one. If Comcast is capped at 10% profit they can have a healthy business and never upgrade equipment or coverage area. There is no incentive for expansion. Instead of being "pro Net Neutrality", purpose a regulation that will work. Most of us are pro saving the fluffy bunny. Do we kill the cuddly rabbit to do it?

No proposed regulation I have read makes sense in terms innovation, expansion and profit. To argue that ISP's should only charge the consumer is fine. The content providers will pay nothing. So the entire cost of faster networks to accommodate the higher quality (both in terms of data and reliability) now must fall on the consumer. Let the free market determine the future of the internet. It did fine in determining the present growth of the internet.

I am against Net Neutrality. Instead of writing a long post that will be ignored and downvoted I will summarize my thoughts. Also, with all do respect to Shog9 but asking for discussion on this biased forum is a little naive.

The problem that Net Neutrality is trying to solve is ISP charging (or slowing/restricting) access to a given content provider. It is not about censorship, don't confuse the two problems. The issues I have are two fold.

Is this really a problem?

The current standard for broadband and mobile data is to charge a rate for a minimum speed and amount of data transfer, ie 10 GB @ min 25 MBs. No one seems to think this is outrageous and gladly pays their cellphone/cable bills. You may not like the price but you don't mind paying for the service. Saying that AT&T or Comcast should not charge for faster speeds or more data is like saying fast food and fine dining should cost the same. Should content providers be except from the same pricing model the consumer pays? If Netflix was forced to pay for more bandwidth they may invest in a better way to compress/deliver digital video over the internet or invent the futurenet.

What is the solution?

Making a regulation that says "play nice" is ridiculous on it's face. Is the answer to regulate all ISP's to cap profits at 10%? To say they all must provide 100 MB/s download speeds everywhere? Let's examine the first one. If Comcast is capped at 10% profit they can have a healthy business and never upgrade equipment or coverage area. There is no incentive for expansion. Instead of being "pro Net Neutrality", purpose a regulation that will work. Most of us are pro saving the fluffy bunny. Do we kill the cuddly rabbit to do it?

No proposed regulation I have read makes sense in terms innovation, expansion and profit. To argue that ISP's should only charge the consumer is fine. The content providers will pay nothing. So the entire cost of faster networks to accommodate the higher quality (both in terms of data and reliability) now must fall on the consumer. Let the free market determine the future of the internet. It did fine in determining the present growth of the internet.