Should the internet be a right, a service, a product, or a utility?
Governments around the world are trying to reign it in and control it. Companies are trying to meter, segregate, throttle, differentiate it, and charge extra for it.
Net neutrality experts say we shouldn't have to pay extra for certain types of traffic or content and no party should get preferential treatment.

I tend to think all data is still data regardless of source content or destination, and it should be delivered like my water bill. One low monthly rate for the same service everybody else gets. I don't get fined for using too much at certain times. We don't have to pay extra for different uses of bathroom kitchen and yard. Coca-Cola and Pepsi don't get to pay the water company to send you their products at a discount. We don't have separate pipes for filtered, unfiltered, flavored, and colored we just get one pure stream. And we pay one low fair use rate. To me the internet should be treated the same way. No BS, just access.
(Please excuse any inaccuracies in the metaphor, they are not after all meant to be perfectly literal.)

Others disagree, and everybody has their own take on the future of the internet, and how should it be accessed, administered, and used. Whats your take Drunk Duck?

I am for the first amendment.

Therefore, the internet should not be controlled in any way shape or form. Because if that is the case, what is to stop government from regulating content that doesn't tow the official partyline?

Anyway, here's some interesting things you might want to look at:

Jay Rockefeller: Internet should have never existed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY

A paper written by the information "czar" (on sidenote, why does America: land of the free, have a "czar"? Have you read your history on what a "czar" is?!?)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

Re: Cyber Security Bill
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/199825/senate_panel_approves_controversial_cybersecurity_bill.html


Regards.