timvw wrote:If you don't like a product (eg: one that differentiates allowed bandwith depending on what you use it for), don't buy it.. I don't see why laws are needed for that...
Its a lot like electricity. If you don't like the rates your local power provider charges, or how they do business (nuclear/coal?), you can't really not buy it, can you?
In some areas, there is a near defacto monopoly being granted to providers. In rural areas, its your local phone company, or you are SOL for getting any connectivity. (Nevermind the discussion about getting broadband there!)
As a result, there is a strong argument to be made that the government has an interest in ensuring that customers aren't abused. By keeping nuetrality in force, they enable competition on the merits - a commodity competition - instead of letting companies gouge customers.
Unfortunately, like most things political, its not nearly that cut and dried. In the cities, its pretty much the opposite situation. You can have one of a hundred providers, ranging from dialup to satellite, cellular to powerline, even wireless! In that environment, forced neutrality isn't ensuring choice of providers on an equal basis - its limiting businesses ability to compete aggressively.
For example, if Earthlink could charge $0.10 a minute for anyone accessing Google, they might be able to fund nationwide free dialup for everyone that doesn't already have it.
Thats a pretty serious competitive advantage, and it could help people in rural areas considerably.
There are substantial pros and cons to both sides of the equation, and its definitely a political issue with serious ramifications to both business, and our livelihood as programmers. In the final equation, it comes down to guessing which choice will be better, and time and again, politics proves to be extremely poor at predicting the future.