There's a third way that works for everybody: defining the market. So government could simply say there are seven different types of internet service. Perhaps

There's a third way that works for everybody: defining the market. So government could simply say there are seven different types of internet service. Perhaps the lowest would be free service that forces you to watch ads. The highest service could be a SLA -- guaranteed bandwidth. That way there is no regulation, _and_ the market is free to operate, _and_ you can have net neutrality, you only have to pay extra for it. What we have instead is problematic in many ways: the FCC taking control where it was not intended to go, and internet providers purposely obfuscating the issue with individual rights jargon. This entire boondoggle is because of Congress not acting and the bureaucracy acting in its stead. The blame for inaction goes to both parties, not just one or the other. I doubt very many Congressmen could talk to net neutrality at the level of an average HN'er. They just get donations, pick sides, then spin the issue to conform to whichever principle their base could support. I'm in favor of Net Neutrality, but it's a devil's bargain. The individual will lose more in the long run than they will gain. Why? Because the forces at work here trying to confuse the market to maximize profits will still exist after a net neutrality law is signed. They'll just go underground and start manipulating the regulators instead of the Congressmen. Then you get the same shitty deal except there's nobody you can kick out of office when it doesn't work. Oh yeah, and you get more government control over the net. We should all remember that the next time we rant about internet kill switches.