Net Neutrality is an interesting issue. I'm normally quite Libertarian when it comes to politics, and the standard Libertarian view is to keep the government aw

Net Neutrality is an interesting issue. I'm normally quite Libertarian when it comes to politics, and the standard Libertarian view is to keep the government away from regulating the internet and let the market work. However, there's not much competition when it comes to infrastructure. Most of the major players have significant capital investments and have been receiving government subsidies to build out their network. So, short of a large technology breakthrough (mesh wireless networking?), there seems to be a huge barrier to entry for new competitors. Furthermore, attempts to improve the situation are being fought (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/07/telco-wont-install-fiber-sues-to-keep-city-from-doing-it.ars http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/07/telco-wont-instal...). Then we have the internet, which has spawned an incredibly active and competitive market with little-to-no entry cost. If we didn't have something like Net Neutrality, then this market would be at risk. Small startups wouldn't have the capital required to partner with ISP's and would have difficulty competing on their merit alone. So, the question becomes, do we let government stifle competitive practices in a market that's already subsidized and has a large barrier to entry, or do we risk stifling competition in our most promising new market? If the infrastructure business was more open and competitive, then I'd say let the market solve the issue and keep government out of it. However, that's not the case, so I think Net Neutrality is the better option for now.