Thanks Brad, this is a great list of background info on the topic of net neutrality. I would also recommend a quick look at the EFF discussion of today's FCC activity. I hadn't thought of the angle that they brought up, but it rings pretty true to me as an additional concern in the high-stakes poker that seems to be going on with this issue.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrali…

Brad, if your readers need net neutrality background may I humbly suggest our comprehensive report from last fall, which frames the current debate pretty well:

http://bit.ly/3b2wwM

The report has interviews with AT&T, Google, Verizon, Free Press… all the major players in the debate.

Should make for an interesting Silicon Flatirons event in Feburary!

What is the principle (or principles) that justify regulation of the owners of the pipe?

Is it that they obtained their ability to have the pipe in the first place by special exemptions, property easements, or the like, so this is what we get in return?

Is it that "what's good for consumers should be the law"?

The same question arises generally with respect to the "common carrier" laws. Common carrier laws work great for everybody who didn't build the business that gets declared a common carrier.

So, just wondering. I see the benefit we get from net neutrality, but I'm not so sure that it's right.

Let's take Comcast as an example. What if Comcast didn't build their network in the first place. What does Comcast owe people? It's their network, let user's demand that their service be fair through free speech. Net neutrality has been a successful effort in the grassroots community, why do we need the FCC? And as far as I can tell Comcast has throttled sites that use up the *limited* resources of their network. I'm sure there may be other fringe case examples, but there's just too much fear mongering about net neutrality. People are worried that the internet is going to become some corrupt marketplace for which websites will be given priority for those who pay off the ISP's the most? A plausible argument, but practical given the current state of the internet? Maybe in Myanmar. User's ought to demand their internet be transparent, and if someone wants to stream HD content, they can pay more for it. It's Comcast's right. And it's your right as a consumer to demand transparency, not by the forceful hand of the government, but the invisible hand of the marketplace.

Thank you in advance for your quick answer !. Very nice post.

thanks for your tribute.