Homogenization, you ask? How can carriers compete if all they sell are commodities? The only way to grow that precious bottom line is to put out a better product at a lower cost. Only the carriers can do that. Government regulators simply don’t have the day-to-day knowledge of the competitive landscape and emerging technologies that the carriers themselves have.

With regard to mergers, your concern is that these mergers will lead to one monopolistic carrier leaving you a single choice for service. I believe that’s simply not possible. While large carriers have been merging, that’s a sign of efficiency, not a sign of the end to competition. Take judges such as Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who just last week refused to simply rubber stamp mergers just because the FCC already approved of them. Are you saying that not only should we distrust the carriers, but now we should distrust the legislators that we voted for to protect our rights? It looks like you have no faith in the consumer to make good purchasing decisions.

The fact is that broadband is a competitive marketplace. Even if there was only ONE cable broadband provider and ONE telco DSL provider (which will never happen), there would still be the satellite and dial-up service providers, of which there are many. That doesn’t even include new delivery technologies such as BPL, EVDO/UMTS, WiMax, and to a certain degree, the emergence of municipal and subscription-based WiFi services! Consumers have a choice and always will. The beauty of capitalism is that it self-corrects for inefficiencies. Bad carrier decisions lead to such inefficiencies that the market should be able to correct on its own.

So, carriers want your money. They want my money. They want everyone’s money. The only way they’ll get it is to offer a service that people both want to buy and can afford to buy. If they adversely impact pricing plans and quality of service arrangements not only with customers, but also with content providers like Google, Amazon, Ebay, etc., they will put themselves in a position to hurt their own bottom line. While you may not trust them to care about their customers (and I wouldn’t disagree to a great extent), trust them to look after their bottom line, and that can only be delivered by you and me.

Going back to my original example, Net Neutrality will actually limit the ability of the Internet to flourish as a public forum. Keep in mind that giving carriers the right to manage their networks as they see fit does not mean they will, all of a sudden, make “stupid� decisions. You say, “these companies, given the power to charge different amounts to different individuals, will have the power to squelch someone’s expression via the internet.� Aside from the fact that this goes beyond the Net Neutrality debate, why do you not have these same concerns in the telephone world? There are a variety of packages and pricing plans offered to different types of consumers. I don’t think anyone is complaining about the right of the telephone companies to charge different rates. I actually like to have that choice. One size definitely does not fit all.

Regardless of how the Net Neutrality debate finally ends up (should be interesting with the shift in power with the recent elections), the consumer’s rights are not an issue here. Individuals will always maintain the right to express themselves freely. I don’t think carriers are looking to abolish our rights as protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

As painful as it is to hear (or say?), our country was built on some fairly capitalist principles. I, for one, don’t have a problem with that. Capitalism brought us some great things in the last couple hundred years and continues to do so today. The Internet would not exist in any form today if it wasn’t for the very telecommunications carriers Net Neutrality proponents are looking to handcuff. These carriers must be given the opportunity to thrive and yes, dare I say, “profit� from their services. Without that carrot, development and the new medium to take the place of radio and TV (as you put it) simply cannot exist. Would you argue that the Internet of 10 years ago could support today’s demand? Do you think the Internet of today will support demand in 10 years? I believe the answer to both questions is “No�. Carriers must continue to grow and develop.

One last thought. Doesn’t freedom extend to the market as well as society? The people that manage these carriers are also the consumers of the services, just like you and me. Keep that in mind as you broaden this discussion to South American water supplies.