philo_the_middle

How is net neutrality going to play out? What I mean is: Will it require governmental regulation (ala utility companies) and if so, will that undermine competition in the marketplace? I want MORE choices for my providers to keep Comast/Att/TimeWarner/Verizon honest but I'm afraid any governmental regulation will throttle that at the root. I don't want a limited amount of choices for my providers like I have for my electric company!

Can you explain exactly how Title II does NOT increase taxes and decrease innovation and how Title II does NOT decrease competition in the marketplace?

So, Net Neutrality in this context is specifically regarding Title II?

The problem we have with ISPs (versus wireless carriers) is that we don't have a choice. I live outside Nashville and Comcast is the only viable choice (Charter is not where I am and neither is Verizon Fios or Uverse). Satellite is an option but not really due to costs. Meanwhile Comcast charges me "x" for basic internet because I don't use any of their other services. I want Comcast to have to compete for my business.

For me, Net Neutrality should not limit content choices WHILE allowing for increased competition and investment. I'm just not sure Title II is a good fix and probably needs a completely new regulation that offers incentives for new competitors to increase capacity and reach.

I think this is a fear-mongering tactic you're employing. Why should we believe that ISPs would block traffic that I'm interested in consuming?

It's in the ISPs best interest to supply a means of consuming legal content that is in demand.

There's no precedent that suggests any ISP would want to block access to say Netflix or Amazon. It is certainly suggested that ISPs want to charge more for access to content in demand and follows the basic supply/demand laws of economics.

Here's a scenario analogy:

Millions of people want to travel to Tahiti. There are "x" number of providers that can get them there. Some are slower, some are faster.

NO ONE would suggest that the carrier who has a Supersonic Jet (better infrastructure) should charge the same as someone who provides the same trip via an Prop Driven Cargo plane. Taking carrier A via supersonic Jet in 1/3 of the time demands a premium price over taking Carrier B (cargo plane @ 3x the time) who offers a lower price.

That's what we're talking about right? We're saying that all carriers should provide the same access to the same destination at the same rate REGARDLESS of the infrastructure/investment that is used to reach that destination. Am I following this correctly?