[molewhacka]

There is already an entire generation that has "cut the cable" and get whatever content they want whenever they want it via their ISP or wireless provider. The cable/satellite business model should be required to make their business case based on the free market - provide what the customers want or go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers.

The other thing rarely mentioned in the net neutrality debate is the role of private property rights. The companies that own the infrastructure should be free to charge whatever the market will bear so long as we permit a free market.

People are also not entitled to multiple times more of a product or service for the same price. If you want more, you have to be willing to pay more.

[Stentor]

The companies that own the infrastructure should be free to charge whatever the market will bear so long as we permit a free market.

Role of property rights? That's hilarious. Wasn't most of that infrastructure built benefit of monopoly deals? What free market?

[ConservativeMind]

Sadly, the critical portions of that “infrastructure” you describe are under true monopolies. The way to get beyond that might include cities or non-profits buying that “last mile” to allow “truer” competition.

Competition does not thrive when broadband is offered by only a single cable company and a single DSL company. No phone provider has the bandwidth to supply broadband to all for an economical price to compete.