I hang our liberties on our constitution. I do not post to be incendiary or to throw insults here or there simply because someone disagrees with me. I post for reasonable and intelligent debate on issues instead of firebranding. I did not admit that you were right on any occasions, I simply stated that I agree with conservatives about adjusting roll out regulations because they are harmful to innovation.

If you consider a President who, in my above post, would be unable to usurp the constitution a ‘boffoon’, than does that make someone who is successful in doing so a genius? Is that the kind of logic you want to use to create demagogy?

It seems to me that you were unable to refute any of my points with any serious evidence and instead resort to childish behavior and straw arguments and clinging to a cession that I made to an argument that wasn’t yours.

I’d also like to point out your comment in the original post:

“One can always get a new ISP in a competitive market if a particular firm becomes anti-Christian, anti-2nd Amendment, or anti-Republican in general. Choosing a new government is less practical.”

It seemed pretty easy for the people of this country to choose a new government last November. I as a citizen who takes my right and luxury to vote on my representatives find it very insulting for you to consider my right to do so as unpractical simply because you are unhappy with the outcome of the previous election.

I ignored it by not commenting on it.

No, they do in their EULA try and dictate how you use your own property, I’d recommend reading one sometime, I believe Comcast still disallows you from using a router at all, or at least attempts to do so.

They do pay taxes, but to the State and Federal, I was not talking about them, I was talking about the physical land they use from the city or municipality who’s usage is allowed with good faith. I’m not promoting authoritarian, although you seem to wish I was to prove a point. We as citizens offer telecom companies breaks on usage of public land because we understand that its for a greater good, I, as a citizen who makes this exception expect to be returned the favor. I was not promoting, as someone else suggested, that we threaten to tax or else, I was illustrating the length at which cities and municipalities go to offer good faith to telecoms to help promote their services and businesses for its citizens.

Your misconception of how the internet works is very apparent. Peering does not happen at the neighborhood level anywhere, there is, generally, one single ILEC who services the lines for the entire area. Competition is created by federal requirements that CLECs be allowed to lease the lines an use them. You do not get into any kind of peering until after its hit the ILEC’s backbone. Of note too there has been a relatively dramatic shift in how traffic flows in just the past few years across peering networks, tier 1 providers, the ones that everyone has contracts with, are more and more being used less and less, which will at some point require renegotiation of those contracts of transit rights and costs.

You also disassemble my comment in a context of market competitiveness and as anyone who knows anything about the US telecom industry it is far from that. There are not cut-rate ISPs unless we discuss dialup. That’s where the problem truly lies, I believe that honest market competition is a key to any thriving industry and the betterment of services offered to citizens and consumers. But that’s not a possibility in such a market place as telecom because of the inherent capital requirements and barriers of running your own lines, as well as the burden on municipalities on having to manage that many under/above ground wires. In any given area, except heavy metropolises, there are generally 2 broadband providers, one offering ADSL one offering Cable. Some areas you only have one because of last mile costs. Because of the way bundling works in the industry ISP selection is more about convenience (do I already have an account with them so they don’t charge more for the service) than about choice, couple that with increasingly anti-competitive contracting that are starting to involve early termination fees and you have a market that, despite your suggestion that consumers could just jump ship, consumers would be hard pressed to be able to do so.

You clearly miss the mark on what net neutrality is and mistake the only way for an ISP to control bandwidth is to discriminate against traffic types, this is not the case. We’ve already seen this issue brought up widely with Comcast and P2P traffic, there is a whole list out there of ISPs who traffic shape and discriminate against traffic type, there was a smaller local ISP, again no competition results in one carrier in the area, who banned VOIP from crossing their network, a clearly anti-competitive action to force you as a consumer to use their telephony solutions. That’s the reason for net neutrality, as someone below note it’s not about allow all you can eat service, however, with the recent information regarding profits from online distribution of media and games I don’t think it’ll be long before that becomes the norm as well at the urging of content providers. The alternative to traffic shaping is already deployed in many countries, most notably Australia and have already been test deployed in a few parts of the country here by major ISPs. They operate on the idea that, depending on what your connection speed is, you have X amount of GB you can download per month, if you go over, your connection is throttle and then you get overage fees.

I’d also like to point out that you ignored my argument in regards to the potential for censorship with net neutrality, which was my key point in regard to the demagogy that was being passed off as factual certainty and clearly the center point of the author’s argument against net neutrality.