The most common response from those who oppose net neutrality is - We don’t need legislation because no one’s throttling bits, or creating multi-tiered internet distribution.

The Time Warner branch in Beaumont, Texas is trying out a system where slow access is cheaper than fast access (over the same cable lines). This sets up a structure where Time Warner will be able to offer “special deals” to their customers to get fast service on certain products, like, for example, Time Warner movies (but not movies from Netflix, YouTube, or any other competitor who hasn’t paid Time Warner for premium access to their customers).

This is precisely why we need net neutrality. The internet is a platform for free speech. We shouldn’t live in a world where Time magazine can buy a page of paper for a penny, but a local advocacy group has to pay a dollar for a page of paper.

Virgin Media in the UK has already said they’d fight against net neutrality. Some Canadian corporations have already instituted forms of throttling. Australia and New Zealand aren’t far behind. Will the USA sacrifice it’s principled commitment to freedom of speech for greater corporate profits? Or will you contact your congressperson and tell them to pass a net neutrality bill?

That said, maybe someone can explain to me what David Reed means when he says that “ISPs already use the technique [deep packet inspection] to make decisions about traffic, and the tool is only getting better as computer processing power advances.” Why do ISPs currently use deep packet inspection to regulate traffic?

Here’s the Wired article that suggests ISPs already do deep packet inspections on all traffic. I’m not alone in my confusion, the three responders are also confused by this comment.

Random Articles