I have read most of the comments on the web and very very few have provided an objective analysis. I am trying to provide you one.

There are two parts, the practical and the philosophical. Let us address the practical first – philosophers are known to be patient.

One perspective of Net Neutrality is the battle between the Comcast & Verizons of the world (“service providers” or SPs) and Netflix and Goggle and Apples of the world who provide the applications (“content providers” or CPs).

The CP position is that we have purchased and huge bandwidth pipe from my provider and the customer has also bought a broadband connection then our traffic then our traffic be treated with equal priority as other traffic (lets use the word – QoS). This is as simple as it gets.

The SP position has two parts, the real reason and the ostensible reason. The real reason is that they are NOT making money and the CPs are. So the SPs want to be content providers also. So far fair. What is not fair is (attempting to & getting caught) throttling rival traffic (COMCAST) to promote their (otherwise uncompetitive Apps).

An example will make this clear. Netflix peers with Level-3 (LVLT)networks and customer-X peers with COMCAST (CMCSA). Somewhere there is a junction between LVLT & CMCSA. The peering charges is similar to International Telephone. But CMCSA wants more and is charging a “traffic toll” to LVLT (and at the end NetFlix) extra money.

The ostensible reason is providing “tiered service”. (Something like Express-Mail. Priority or First Class from USPS). It says that it wants to sell a GOLD VPN to (say) Fedex to connect its San Jose office to its Austin office.

The FCC ruling accepts the ostensible reason and not the real reason. There is also the Wireless aspect which I will take up in a later post.

Now comes the “philosophical part” of “FCC control”. This is where I would part ways by saying “As technology increases the need for a new policeman increases” – whether we like it or not.

An example would make this clear…

At the time of independence there was no concept of “traffic police”. When one hundred years ago, cars came on the road, we had a new era of policing and a concept of traffic police and traffic lights (and other automated traffic police) were introduced. Are they perfect? – NO. But we always try for a balance.

Another word about politics. It just happens that the Comcast and Verizons of the world are Republican while Netflixes and Apples of the world are Democrats. If it were other way around then you would be crying “Protect the Internet from Elitist control and hand it over to the people”

there is a difference between screaming and intelligent discussion.
a: I am not from Google. But why do you choose COMCAST over GOOGLE?
b: “It’s easy to argue when you make stuff up”. Please tell me what I have made up. Net Neutrality. Come on…..Please talk logic

“government sticking its nose”
… try foreign wars that drained a lot of taxpayer resources.

Coming to topic! What would you say if the city road management decided to give preferential traffic lights to its taxi service over a third party taxi service? Would you not complain?

Possible. People would realize that a service provider must treat all customers with an equal rate chart, then they would support it.

I tried to explain what it is. I did not get a proper debate – just name calling. maybe you cannot provide one!

The fun part is what many people are saying is exactly opposite of their signatures. What “powertothepeople” wants is to take away the power of the people to use the Internet as they feel like! What a Joke!!!

I will back if there is a sensible posting… .