quisp65

I think a Title II imposed without back-end price openness would lean away from Neutrality at least in terms of back-end negotiations. I'm sure a lot of lawyers would love having to deal with every negotiation but I think open prices is a far better way of achieving Neutrality. Wheeler was leaning at doing this, and this would keep litigation to a minimum.

Does content providers having largely the sole public vocal voice in effect make America's Net Neutrality debate one sided? There's my question ;-)

Personally I think technology is going to solve any problem better than Government oversight at least in regards to the true definition of Net Neutrality. Litigation is going to be more costly to content providers than decentralizing servers in the long run.

Would you support the GOP bill in some measure if pricing of all back end negotiations were made public? I feel the GOP bill is unclear in this area and needs to be clarified with them. Price openness with the back-end is one of the few things I feel is important.

Check out Popcorn Time. It can expand to whatever size without spending $1 to get video content to the consumer. Net Neutrality lives NOW and that position you mention hasn't been debunked. This is mostly is a solution in search of a problem. Granted there are some issues though and hopefully Wheeler will address them.

Net Neutrality will be for everyone, but telling the story in an incorrect way while we try to figure out the best way to do things is not a cause for everyone. Nearly everyone is for Net Neutrality, and saying one side isn't for Net Neutrality is arrogant and one sided. There is lobbyists & money influencing many sides of this issue. Let's keep the ideas open.