Save Net Neutrality

There is a crazy fight going on in congress today and you probably don't know about it. A variety of up-and-coming content providers are fighting giant entrenched telecommunications over the abstract ideal of "net neutrality." Said much better than I: Wikipedia on Net Neutrality:

...Internet transport and service system, having received valuable public right of way should not be allowed to be privately owned without open access so that owners could provide services that they own on favorable terms and thus unfairly compete with third-party services.

Opponents of Net Neutrality cite four main talking points:

1. Internet access is not a public utility.
2. Prioritized services will bring revenue to the carriers and encourage innovation.
3. Prioritized services will encourage competition.
4. Net Neutrality will cause too much regulation of the Internet.

Now allow me to comment:

1. Internet access is a public utility. The points proving the internet is a public utility are too numerous to mention. I have a favorite, though: The 75% of current infrastructure of the internet was paid for by taxpayers, not the telecommunications companies.
2. Now I agree whole-heartedly with this point: prioritized services will bring revenue to the carriers and allow innovation. Trouble is, prioritized services will not bring revenue to small companies and encourage innovation by the same. On the other hand, we have a whole 10 year history of the internet to look back on and, gosh, can you believe it, zillions of small companies were able to profit and innovate with the internet back then.
3. Prioritized services will encourage competition. In a pig's eye. Look, I live in a city of 1.5 million people. We have two choices for Internet access: Time Warner Cable and BellSouth DSL. I haven't seen a price drop from either of them in ten years. That lie just won't stick fellahs, get a better one.
4. Net Neutrality = regulation. The telecommunications bill they are now considering will allow Internet carriers to charge different rates for "better" service. So if Time Warner decides that Baptist web sites should get premium service and Catholic web sites should get crappy service, that's all OK, right? Funny, I don't ever see people complaining about how this "first amendment freedom of speech" requires the government to regulate numerous industries.

Please make your voice heard.