I've been following this "net neutrality" debate for a long time, and both sides have made some decent points. I used to be a hardcore in the camp of pro net-n

I've been following this "net neutrality" debate for a long time, and both sides have made some decent points. I used to be a hardcore in the camp of pro net-neutrality, but the more I think about it, the more it seems that there are some things that regulation does not solve efficiently. I guess the most frustrating thing is that _lack_ of regulation is not going to solve anything either. One thing that lack of regulation on this issue does is make it substantially more difficult for small innovators to reap the benefits of their efficiency. Those tiny, seemingly insignificant increases in efficiency go practically unnoticed by the large monolithic telecos, but the people who are in the position to innovate further upon those marginal efficiencies (increasing rate of return on efficiency, if that makes sense) cannot do so when the ISPs themselves are taking more than a reasonable share from the people who are doing the innovating (whether the innovators are customers or competitors is important to the ISPs in that I imagine most ISPs would rather have innovative customers than innovative competitors). And that is essentially why I think that a Laissez-faire approach cannot be good news for the tiny, tech-oriented startup whose lifeblood depends upon an Internet connection.