DISQUS

Indeed, it's almost depressing that everyone is (rightfully) up-in-arms over telecom immunity, but ignoring the larger issues with both bills. It's a skillful bit of propaganda, I believe. Telecom immunity is so incredibly outrageous that to defeat it, we'll ignore the worst parts of the bill, give up our liberties, and still feel like we've accomplished something.

The problem is that it isn't as clear-cut. A lack of regulation would be wonderful in a market with plenty of competition, but unless you're in a reasonably sized metropolitan area, it's quite likely you do not have a choice in ISP. At the very best, your choice will be between a single phone company and a single cable company. Satellite, et al aren't terribly useful due to latency issues.

I'm in the middle of nowhere, upstate New York, and I work from home. Because I require a reasonably high-speed connection (read: not dial-up), I have one choice of ISP, the local cable provider. Should that (unnamed) local cable provider decide to start abusing TCP reset packets for their own purposes, violating IETF standards, what choices do I have? If I had the ability to take my business to another provider, either another cable company, this would not be an issue. However, because said cable company is the only player in the local market, I have no choices. Sure, the PR fallout might eventually force them to reconsider, but in the meantime, I'm stuck, and additionally, long-term I'm stuck with them whether they deserve to receive my money or not.

It's this type of situation that must be addressed, and it's what network neutrality should be about. Granted campaigners for it have taken it to major and unfortunate extremes, doesn't mean it isn't a problem that needs to be addressed. In a free market, it wouldn't be an issue because there would be plenty of competition, and I could easily take my business elsewhere. Unfortunately, that's not what we have. The market has been manipulated into its current position, and there's no easy way out.