What’s more, if the FCC could ban our residential rate plans, it would be very anti-consumer. Our customers love the fact that they can buy a less expensive connection if they simply agree not to run servers (which most of them do not want to run anyway). On these connections, we prohibit P2P because it hogs bandwidth, because it attempts to seize priority over other traffic, and because it sets up a server for a third party’s content on our network without permission or compensation. This does not mean that our network is not a “two way” communication system; it simply means that certain behaviors which consume large amounts of resources are not allowed. We could not offer the attractive rates we charge for these plans if we were forced to allow bandwidth-hogging, abusive P2P traffic. We do offer business-class service, at higher rates, to people who do not want these restrictions. However, since bandwidth costs us $100 per Mbps per month at wholesale, customers who choose those rate plans pay us about $120 per Mbps per month. Residential customers pay much less. You pay your money and take your choice. That’s fair.

I built my network with my own hands. My customers love the service I provide and are very pleased with the terms under which I provide it. The government has no right to appropriate my network or meddle in my business relationships.

As for your specious argument that we must be regulated out of business because we use the public airwaves: Do you use a car and drive on public roads to get to work? Well, I guess that justifies intrusive, onerous government regulation of your business that would make it unprofitable and harm your customers.

You and others are saying: net neutrality will lead to congestion pricing, metering, etc… That may or may not be the case, but the original point I was raising was that net neutrality will not ban congestion pricing. Go back and read Stacey’s post. She outlines several types of congestion pricing schemes. Then she says they might not be allowed because of net neutrality rules. I pointed out that the proposed rules do not preclude congestion pricing. You saying that these rules will lead to congestion pricing is not the opposite of me saying the rules will not ban congestion pricing.

And Brett, blocking ALL P2P is wrong. You are selling access to a two-way communications system. If a user chooses to communicate, you should not care what protocol they use. If that users behavior impacts others using the free government spectrum you repackage and profit from, then you can implement user-specific throttling. But to outright block a protocol breaks the Internet.

Sounds like you’ve just admitted to something that is a violation of existing FCC rules. Remember Brett, you are selling access to a resource you don’t own or add any value to (the Internet), using the public airwaves for free, and profiting from that. You don’t get that you are a part of a social commons, and your breaking of basic protocols is akin to pissing in the well?