The extent that government should be involved is the proverbial “shouting fire in a crowded theater” scenario. Other than that limited scope, government has no role.'
The disagreement is over the term "Net Neutrality". I don't care whether or not government is involved, as long as "Net Neutrality" is preserved. So far the ISPs have mostly been all right, although the interference with peer-to-peer software is very troubling.
I suggest you use more precise terms to articulate your view, such as "FCC-enforced Net Neutrality", or better yet reference a specific piece of legislation.
(BTW I guess you advocate terminating the USPS and going the complete privatization route, eh? We wouldn't want the government involved in "private communication"...including all those pesky laws about tampering with mail. Right?)
Absolutely. With today's technology and transportation systems, the USPS is little more than an anachronistic jobs program for Obama voters. You'll want to read some history about how the original postal systems served the King as an intelligence network used to spy on the populace and report back. See here the very first "net neutrality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Penny_Post
The government being involved is the problem in a nut shell. As I see it, government control over private communications is the antithesis of conservatism.
-——————The disagreement is over the term “Net Neutrality”. I don’t care whether or not government is involved, as long as “Net Neutrality” is preserved.-——————
You should. Because “Net Neutrality” is a red herring in order to get government involved.
The less government is involved, the more neutral the internet will remain. Look at every other sector of American life. The more government involvement there is, the less neutral it is.
This thread contains the definition of net neutrality, according to them:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2746787/posts