First, if you haven’t already, I invite you to first read my initial post about Net Neutrality, then return to this post.

Upon further reflection, not only do I agree with the Comcast vs. FCC decision, but I find the fact that this case had to occur in the first place to be VERY offensive.

Basically, this is the federal gov't saying:

“all your packets are belong to us”

(who can deny that statement?)

...and they do so with absolutely zero statutory basis for this. But even if they do pass a law in Congress to enable this control, this would be unprecedented because the Internet is a series of *PRIVATE* networks tied together and what private companies do with their private hardware and software shouldn't involve government control/regulation if it doesn't exploit or harm innocent 3rd parties or break other laws or involve something else specifically related to their business. (I know for example that certain Federal Trade Commission-regulated companies have to keep ALL messages on file for X number of years--but that still doesn't give the FTC authority over the packets)

imo, Net Neutrality, when policed by the Gov't, is a violation of the 4th amendment of the US Constitution:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Of course, the gov't wants control over our packets to make everything “fair”.. and of course, the best minds with good intentions THINK they can write up rules that sufficiently protect us from overreach. But is there really that much difference between (1) what King George was doing when his men would enter the homes of the colonists at will and on a whim --AND-- (2) the authority that the US gov't wants to have over our private networks? Fundamentally, there is NOT a difference.

So I ask:

(A) Where does this end? What OTHER aspects of our private lives (personal & professional) should also be regulated/controlled by the gov't? At what point is the 4th amendment to the US constitution rendered meaningless?

(B) Once they have authority over our packets and routers, will there EVER be a way to turn the clock back?

(C) Is the current status quo really THAT bad... that we should risk so much for what I think would be so little gain in return (if any!).

Sure, right now, it is “for the children”.. with all these altruistic and innocent goals. That is how ALL overly abusive government programs begin. But don't be surprised when, in the not-too-distant future, extremist Liberal politicians *and* extremist Conservative politicians use this new power as a means to shut down (or simply intimidate!) opposition web sites in the weeks before elections, for just one example.

Does that sound alarmist? Well, consider the fact, for example, (A) the Campaign Finance Reform Act prohibited certain issue oriented ads from being purchased if it was either 30 days just before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. (For this reason, many call it the Incumbant Protection Act!) Consider also that (B) within the past couple of decades, there are indisputable examples of private individuals and organizations who specifically challenged a certain U.S. President in court (not mentioning any names) who VERY soon afterwards found themselves hit with an IRS audit--the concentrations of this were FAR beyond what could have happened by chance alone. Connect the dots and any reasonable person should understand that the current freedoms on the Internet rub some in Washington the wrong way... and they are itching to get control over the Internet for evil political intentions. (...recognizing of course that there are many well-intentioned and ethical experts in the industry who support Net Neutrality)

But even if I'm wrong about the federal government’s worst intentions, I still think we are like the frog in the slowly-heating water who doesn't know he is being boiled to death. It is highly offensive for the gov't (without probable cause or 3rd parties being harmed) to assume it has the authority to control and/or regulate and/or monitor routers and packets on PRIVATELY owned and operated networks. Period.