[whmurray]

As I understand "net neutrality" it means that traffic should flow and be priced without regard to origin, destination, application, device, or content. Your packets should not have priority over mine and they should cost the same.

The discussion gained momentum when AT&T suggested that Google should pay more than their other customers.

I do not think that discriminatory pricing or delivery is a good idea. I am glad that the FCC chairman has come down on my side.

However, I do not think that government regulation of the Internet is a good idea either. My favorite five words of English are, "Congress shall make no law........." We do not permit the state to regulate speech because history demonstrates that the state will use such power in its own interest tather than that of the citiizen.

Similarly, government should not be able to regulate access to media. Government should not influence what I use my ink to say and should not be able to restrict my access to ink.

In this case, government is using speculation about the potential for market abuse to justify a regulatory role for itself. It is already a crime for AT&T to collude with Verizon to force Google to pay more than other customers. That law and competition ought to be enough power for government to use to prevent discriminatory prices.

That may not be sufficient to resist discriminatory treatment of traffic. Carriers are already "shaping" traffic in the name of network efficiency. There is concern that they will discriminate in the name of efficiency. However, I am willing to leave even that to the market and the states until someone demonstrates abuse. I am not yet willing to grant power to the federal government in anticipation of a problem that may never be real.

What am I missing?