[berrypicker]

I don't see a problem. You can switch ISP if your current one isn't net-neutral. Why should you force businesses to operate in certain way? They're not breaking any laws.

[themoonbus]

Why should you force business to operate in a certain way? Because, weirdly enough, the profit motive isn't always sufficient to make sure that business operate for the benefit of consumers, or more broadly, society.

Antitrust laws, environmental laws etc. all force businesses to "operate in a certain way". You can argue for more or less regulation, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to argue for no regulation.

Also, the issue is many people don't have a choice between ISPs, or if they do, it's between two major ISPs. If a Time Warner / Comcast juggernaut implements a fast lane, do you think that Verizon or whoever else won't?

[trurl]

Clearly you aren't living in the United States. My choices are Comcast, Comcast, and Comcast.

I'm really starting to think mesh networks are going to be the only solution.

[johnward]

Same here. There is literally no other option for broadband. Not even DSL. My other option is satellite?

[mariusz79]

You forgot about Comcast. :)

[berrypicker]

Are there no smaller, 'independent' ISPs which aren't part of conglomerates that are unlikely to remain net-neutral?

[krschultz]

'They're not breaking any laws' is an empty argument when the current debate is about 'what laws should we write to curb behavior that is bad for society'.

[serge2k]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_market

[spacefight]

It also a slippery slope. If ISP A is making $$$ from not treating everyon the same, ISP B-Z will follow eventually....

[johnward]

In many markets you cannot in fact switch.