If you look at a road map of the United
States, you will see that, with just a
couple of minor exceptions, all the main
roads are toll-free -- operated by the
public, for the public.
There is a reason we developed the
Interstate Highway system this way,
instead of using toll roads with
rates determined by local demand.
It's because we understood the
strengthening effect of highway
neutrality in a large and complex
nation.
When it comes to basic infrastructure,
a neutral carrying policy is the only
sane way to go. If we allow anything
else for the Internet, we will never
fulfill the promise of universal
participation that lies so palpably
within our reach.
Some may point out that larger carriers
do pay more to use the highway system.
Commercial trucks pay by the pound for
their extra load. This is true, but
we should take the analogy all the way:
the point is that these are fees are
payed *by the users of the system*,
based directly on degree of use.
Network Neutrality simply says that
since people are *already* paying for
the level of service they desire when
they purchase their network connection,
carriers should not be able to double-
charge for traffic by also charging the
other side of the connection.
Imagine if the Interstate Highway
system not only charged each truck
per pound per mile, but *also* charged
the recipient of the goods for simply
receiving them (the same recipient, of
course, is already paying the carrying
fee implicitly, because the fee is
included in the price of the goods
carried).
The non-neutral system proposed by
certain network service providers is
merely a transparent form of double-
charging. It defies common sense, and
should not be permitted in a society
that values the free flow of information
as much as it values the free flow of
goods. Network Neutrality is both good
policy and common sense -- please
legislate accordingly.
Thank you,
-Karl Fogel