What does Net Neutrality mean to you?

Thursday (tomorrow) there is going to be a vote on whether or not to enact a "Net Neutrality" law. I watch Glenn Beck, and if you just listened to him, it would be an infringement on free speech.



Since I do have a mind of my own, I decided to research it some more.

Source
www.techcrunch.com...

On the pro side;

Too often, the discussion of why we need to protect the open Internet degenerates into a stale debate about regulation versus the free market. In fact, it’s impossible for innovation to continue apace without some basic rules of the road to protect that innovation.

The open Internet was the principle leading the development of the Internet as the first open global communications network. And it helped drive the development of a host of Internet applications like Facebook, YouTube, and Skype. There would have been no motivation for the developers of these applications to have expended time, effort, and in some cases, their own financial security, in pursuit of their vision if they weren’t guaranteed their inventions would have been able to work over any Internet connection.

On the con side

. . . Leading network neutrality proposals contain numerous ambiguities that would create uncertainty for everyone in the Internet industry. Here’s just one example: the most prominent network neutrality proposal of the 2006 congressional session, known as Snowe-Dorgan, defined a “broadband service provider” as “a person or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used to provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free.” Does this mean that the owner of a coffee shop with a WiFi connection would be subject to FCC regulation of its firewall configuration? One would hope not, but that’s what the language seems to suggest. The same point can be made with respect to hotels, Internet cafes, airports, and even individuals who choose to make their home WiFi connection available to their neighbors.

Like most issues coming out of this administration, I don't trust it. I have my doubts that their motives are pure and clean. Is this just another way to control what is being said through the media of the internet? Or is this, in fact, just a harmless approach to providing more access for all?

Everybody here can probably guess where my vote would go.

But would like your opinion on it as well.

Remember, they vote on it tomorrow. Something like this might go under the radar of the media. Which is why I am doubtful of the altruistic feelings behind this in the first place.

-mods, I'm sure this has been discussed at length in the past, if you feel the need to remove, then allow my apologies in the first place-