[quote]FCC is simply stepping back and giving us as a people more freedom.[/quote] They're giving corporations more freedom which theoretically isn't necessarily a bad thing in general... if this wasn't about internet access. I mean, would you say the same thing if your water supply would not be regulated and it would become totally fine to overcharge you for water or worse - don't comply with any sanitary regulations so if your water looks brown, no problem, they don't have to give you clean water, it's more freedom for us/them, right? Because we're talking about the internet, regulations are a MUST. Imagine the same would happen with phones, would you like your phone company to be allowed to block your friend's number for you if you have a different provider? I bet you wouldn't.

Then in the capitalist sense, what is stopping people from making a killing selling condensers and water filters? Texas is off the nation's electrical grid. Companies lower prices or offer incentives to get you to use their power instead of having to use the communal pool. If a company won't let you call your friends provider, why would your friends provider not just allow cross provider calls? They would get a ton of extra business then. If a provider banned all out of network access, they would lose customers. Like I said, both sides have bad and good....

What's stopping people from providing better services? Those companies you defend. They make a deal with a city/municipality that allows only them to be the provider in this area and that's it - you can't open your own business to provide better internet. If this issue would go away, then yes, you can have your "absolute" freedom, but as long as there are (lots of) areas where you simply don't have an option other than - either I get internet from the one provider that's there or not at all, someone needs to make sure that this one provider can't deny you access to all information on the web. [quote]If a company won't let you call your friends provider, why would your friends provider not just allow cross provider calls?[/quote] What? How would company A's behavior affect company B. Let me rephrase this. Imagine you dial a number and see "you can't call this person" because YOUR provider won't allow it. It doesn't matter what your friend uses, if it's YOUR mobile provider that will simply not let you dial a number that's in a different network... and before you say you could switch the provider - yes, IF you had such choice, but again, many people don't have such choice. I don't think there are bad and good sides or at least we shouldn't argue whether capitalism in general is good or not, but look at every case individually. In this particular case, having the government protect your ability to get full access to information is better than letting companies decide what you can or can't see.

Really? I don't think I have ever seen a provider of phone or internet have actual regional monopolies on service. Ie. I had verizon in cali, and moved to georgia. AT&T ruled there. I could still use my spotty verizon though, I wasn't forced to switch. Being able to shop around is the pillar of capitalism. Where are certain providers forced?

Well then now you know - ISPs in the US can negotiate "right of access" to city easements so if you happen to be in an area where you can either have internet from Verizon or no internet at all - you're screwed. That's where net neutrality comes in - it prevents your only ISP in the area from messing with you because they know no one else can pop up and compete with them.

Capitalism is destroying this country, theres a reason European countries have a reliable infrastructure and actual health care. They run with a socialist government, one where there is a free market that is actually regulated to protect the interest of the people from greedy companies.