Yesterday, a federal appeals court ruled that Internet traffic regulators like the FCC had limited power over web traffic under current law. The court decision was a setback to efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to require companies to give Web users equal access to all content, even if some of that content is clogging the network. The court ruling, which came after Comcast asserted that it had the right to slow its cable customers’ access to a file-sharing service called BitTorrent, could prompt efforts in Congress to change the law in order to give the FCC explicit authority to regulate Internet service.
Confused about Net Neutrality? Here’s a video taking the “for” side on Net Neutrality – what it is and why it is important:
Sounds reasonable. Reason has its own video up taking the position against Net Neutrality, you can watch it below:
To summarize the arguments:
That’s my summary in a nutshell. From an end-user perspective, it’s all about freedom. From a corporation’s perspective, it’s all about the money.
"For example, if they take on the risk of building fatter pipes, then if someone wants to pay more to access those fat pipes then they should be allowed to do so." And thats exactly what happens with all those bit torrent connections. People are USING the connections they've paid for. ISP's offer us fantastic speeds based on the assumption that we'll not use it 24/7.
Point 3 is doubtful; at least one ISP in England has openly stated that it will throttle traffic to its customers from web sites that don't pay up.
In point 4, you say "Companies that bear the brunt of net neutrality, such as an ISP, will be against it because they assume the cost of building out more infrastructure but cannot charge anymore for it." This is only true for flat-rate connections, which I don't think are a feasible business model in the long run. If the ISP charges heavy users extra, they can use this to fund infrastructure improvements.
Generally speaking, an ISP should probably not be allowed to charge twice for the same service. If you are charging your customers for access to the internet, you cannot justify simultaneously charging internet sites for access to your customers.
Note that this wouldn't prohibit an ISP from offering major web sites additional services, such as a direct interconnect from the web site to the ISP network core in one or more cities.