Steve Boriss:
I don’t quite what to think about net neutrality legislation. It has long been the ethic of the internet (inherited from its non-commercial roots) that a all connections should be equal (in terms of who you can connect to, etc). That is the normal meaning of net neutrality. I haven’t looked at the details actual NN proposals, but what I have read creates more fairness for users and upcoming vendors. Basically, it limits provision of internet connectivity to just that, rather than allowing connectivity providers to alter the user’s experience based on deals they make with content providers.
There is no way to keep the internet from being regulated by government. It is too important – they will get their mitts on it one way or the other. Net neutrality (and Google’s initiative for open access to 700MHz cellular connectivity) both seem to be good ideas (although the cellular connectivity world is already strongly regulated by the feds via the FCC).
I guess, to me, it’s okay to regulate net neutrality in monopoly situations where federalism is not damaged. It may be okay to regulate it as a matter of creating a good standard (which is a power the feds have long used, usually to the good).
