Seems to obvious to charge along the lines of "use more, pay more" therefore I'm sure it won't happen until we have problems as politicians will only take action when force to take action

Free market economy should rule. If the pipe is a commodity, the price ATT & others can charge the likes of Google will be low. If others can't step in and play the pipe game cheaply, then the bandwith hogs will need to pay.

Let free market economy rwin!!!

Keep it simple: Users and requirements vary. Users and providers should be free to contract for whatever service or services meet those needs. The government should not limit such arrangements unless absolutely necessary.

Yes, the infrastructure is partly a public good but airlines and truck companies use publicly-built infrastructure and are free to offer various levels of service (wish I could afford first class!). Why not allow the same - different levels of service as deemed necessary by the user? If we allow the market to innovate, untold new services, and combinations of services will be created for emerging demand.

Freedom, not excessive regulation.

Use more, pay more makes perfect sense to me.

This argument over-simplifies a complex issue. Net neutrality does not only relate to usage/price, but also to prioritization of content. The latter has already shown that it is subject to abuse resulting in the prioritization, or even blockage, of content that the company disagrees with from an economic or political viewpoint. In other words, it allows censorship by the companies that own the pipes. Additionally, the pay-to-play schema not only affects the companies pushing out content, but the public trying to access that content (extreme example; you paid for internet access, but you won't be able to watch You-Tube anymore...).

Hm - is this act really about encouraging or prohibiting price models for Internet access? Or is it about the right of its users (individuals/consumers as well as companies/suppliers) to determine what will be transported?

Currently (at least to my knowledge) every bit that gets transported over the Internet is being charged twice - the server owner is charged for his traffic and the client (browser, email client) is charged for it as well.

I agree that the market should be regulating the prices. If AT&T and the like cannot afford extending the capacity with the money they make they should and will raise the prices and/or introduce other pricing models.

What should clearly be regulated is the freedom of content. There is no way that I would agree that Sprint prohibits me from receiving a feed from Google. Or charges more for 1 GB from YouTube compared to 1 GB from IPTV. If they can't get the rates from their customers that should be their problem, not mine.

All bytes are equal!

Just compare this to toll roads - all trucks are charged the equal fees - regardless of what they are carrying. And all types of truck are allowed. And a truck pays more than a SUV.

Streets as well as wires are infrastructure. The society has an interest in an open infrastructure for competition to happen.

That's what it should be about - and not about the pricing discussions between AT&T and Google.

Wolf

This is sure to become the political football of the next five years. The entire US economy depends on fast information transfer - take away email and the web, and the whole shooting match might fall silent.

I think Beach has a very valid point, yet figuring out how to spread the costs around will be a fist fight of epic proportions. Individual consumers might wind up paying more than their fair share, if they're not given a place at the table during the discussion. Particularly if the discussion is led by politicians. Oy.

The free market argument makes sense on the surface. The caveat though is that the internet is becoming more and more like a public utility. More and more we are conducting business with our government, banks, and paying bills online. I'm sure you can think of many other examples. For many of us, it's becoming a necessity of life in our modern world.

If the owners of the internet backbone and the users can negotiate and reasonably manage an agreement that treats everyone fairly then let the free market reign. But if, like so many public utilities, the internet becomes unavailable to people because of high pricing, then government regulation may need to play a role. Look what's happening with petroleum and the questions being asked about the high profits the oil companies are making as consumers are being hit hard with such high prices. Congress should tread lightly but carry a big stick if and when the need arises.

I wasn't aware the Internet was free. I pay almost $40 per month at home to Verison and my small business pays several hundred dollars a month.

True it is not a metered service like power or telephone but is a flat rate per level of service like TV cable, garbage, and newspapers.

Tell me where the Internet is free.

The solution is to nationalize the "pipes" that provides the distribution. The Internet is too important for it to be reduced to a class system of who can afford the most access! It's a matter of national security and it's also a matter of our competitive position in the world. The last time I checked we rank about 17th in the world, this will certainly shoot us to the bottom! Haven't we seen enough of what greed can do under this administration!?!