I pay for a connection to access content. Youtoogle pays for a connection to serve content. Should Youtoogle have to pay again to for customers on Bell or AT&T or other major telco? This is basically the telco determining what you can view. If Youtoogle doesn’t want to pay the telco tax then you don’t see that content. Look at the telcos and their access to wireless data, we accept that Telus keeps a walled garden to keep out “unsavory” wireless videos, sites, etc. from their customers. I don’t want these corporations determining what I can see. What if Rogers only allowed you to see Yahoo!? What if they blocked Google, AOL, MSN/Sympatico/Live? Is this acceptable?

This descirbes well the work and the people behind internet infrastructure.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass.html

I would suggest its less Road Neutrality, than it is language neutrality. Consider … no-one tells David Crow what language he should rant in, any more than I may rant in Scottish if it makes me feel better.

I am ok with the telco’s charging for access, and the the market dynamics should determine that price, more than government regulation. But they cannot tell me what I should look at or how I should use internet.

To me thats what net-neutrality should be … freedom to access/ use/ anything I want, just as industrial age people were permitted to converse in any way they saw fit, whether it be hand signals, bearing gifts, or words.