New Yorker: "A Clear Violation of Obama's Promise"

[JDPriestly]

153. Introduce net neutrality and the internet service providers will have to compete based on net

neutrality. We consumers will gain in the end. I remember when we had few choices for phone services. Hey! I remember when all we got was Ma Bell. As long as we do not have net neutrality, internet provider start-ups will have trouble. Once the internet is opened, the money to fund broader band will also be found.

Right now, my husband and I pay extra to have more bandwidth. We use Netflix and Hulu instead of subscribing to cable TV. We take the money we would have to spend to get a decent cable service and put it into extra bandwidth. Why not charge consumers like us for the bandwidth?

Makes sense to me. I do not want content providers having to pay for the additional bandwidth. First, that system will lead companies to invest less in bandwidth improvement since they would be able to make good profits by lessening bandwidth availability. Second, if consumers rather than providers pay for the bandwidth increase, that puts the choice in the hands of consumers.

Also, if net neutrality is the rule, we will get innovative small companies find cheaper ways to provide more bandwidth.

Net neutrality makes sense for consumers.

The FCC should reclassify the internet as a common carrier and see what happens. They can change their minds once they have tried it if it does not work out.

Ultimately, the government should invest in universal bandwidth and lots of it for everyone because if the US does not lead with regard to net neutrality and a content neutral internet, some other country will. We can't afford to lose out on this point of competition.