Dave2 wrote:1) The internet must remain neutral with regard to network traffic. For example, Google cannot offer to pay Verizon to slow down Bing & Yahoo, because the internet must remain neutral and not take sides in terms of which company has more important packets. (This is the original meaning, BTW.)
I'm in favor of the first meaning. Normally, I'm totally a free-market, let-the-consumer-sort-it-out, vote-with-your-wallet kind of guy. But some of these companies have so much money laying around that they can un-level the playing field, and that runs counter to one of the basic tenets of Capitalism -- keep it fair.
I agree. The extent of what should be regulated is preventing ISPs from restricting access to content or giving preferential treatment to it's partners. ISPs should do nothing except provide a connection to the Internet, leaving all content-related decisions to the consumer. Anything less is comparable to what we condemn China for - restricting access to content they don't like.