Well, it's actually well within their right to do that as a business. It's also well within your right, as a customer not to do business with them. However, this whole situation would be solved if we just focused on what was important, like I said: fixing the monopoly problem rather than the "net neturality" problem, if it even is one.
>>> I have serious doubts they would ever block certain sites for business reasons.
Someone replied:
>> Comcast and other ISPs have blocked (by massively reducing the data rate) entire PROTOCOLS, in this case BitTorrent. Irrespective if you downloaded a Linux ISO or the latest fetish porn movie.
So then you reply:
> Well, it's actually well within their right to do that as a business.
What I see here is a contradiction. First you say "I doubt they'd ever do that!" and then when provided with an example of them doing very nearly (if not precisely) that, you then say "Well they're within their rights!"
I agree with you that fixing the monopoly problem is the real solution. I personally think that muni-run last mile networks are the way to do that and to write new laws that authorize, encourage and otherwise enable neighborhoods to run co-ops be they fiber, copper, wifi, etc.
But until such a time as there is robust competition (meaning any one person has say 10 broadband options) I am in favor of net neutrality as patchwork and evolutionary as it is. At least then the "best practices" that ISPs generally lived by for some years would be codified and allow people to sue, thus providing SOME recourse against abusive monopolies. I realize that regulatory capture is a real risk so I'm not overwhelmingly in favor of, it's by a slim margin.
The reason I picked a number like 10 instead of say 3 or 5 is basically "look at the cell phone market" It's pretty terrible and I think some of that can be attributed to the big four (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile) and not much else at least in the way of good coverage national carriers.
