Google has announced Kansas City to be the test site for it’s 1 gig/sec Internet connection.

While that’s fast, it’s not the fastest (China, for example).

This vid illustrates (for me, at least) the biggest controversy in Internet services: Capping and Regulation.

Superfast Internet is a welcome development for many reasons: Educational, entertainment, research, etc.

While we have this incredible technology, it would seem we also have counterproductive forces at work: Capping. In other words, “A gets type A service and B gets type B service” based on what A and B use the Internet for: High demand (movies/games) vs. visiting sites and small data transfers.

Who gets Cable? Who goes back to rabbit ears? Will this come down to "Pay for play"? You have money, you get served. Not much money? You get free/crappy mugglenet services.

Our neighbors to the north (Canada) has recently gone through a fight about the basic question and come down (G-d bless Mr. Harper!) on the side of non-capping. Unfortunately, this has resulted in degraded Netflix transfers (by 60% according to one article I read).

Do ISP’s have a right to give preferential treatment simply by the buyer’s ability to pay? Where is the individual’s right here? Does the big boy win automatically?

The FCC has left a slightly fuzzy area in the ISP’s right to regulate (throttle) service: Yes to wireless, No to fixed line.

The question comes down to this example: You have a road, and supply trucks travel it. Do you demand a fee for usage based on the type of load (nothing destructive - concrete vs. food) or do you demand payment by weight, and do not discriminate by type of cargo?

Seems to me that the democratic thing to do is to demand payment by weight. Who am I to determine which cargo deserves better treatment than another?

“One man’s Mede is another man’s Persian.”

Pun intended, if only to make us smile while we think and…. weigh Net Neutrality. Pun again, and again intended.