Some of the vocabulary surrounding Internet policies is a bit confusing, and it seems like the fear of corporate control is obscuring the idea of government-regulated communication. The issue isn't: "we have to protect ourselves against malevolent monopolies." The Internet is a service established and maintained by companies that earn profits by being useful. The best aspect of the net neutrality debate is rising consumer awareness. If Time Warner decides to kill NetFlix traffic, consumers will speak with their blogs, BBB complaints, and their wallets. Most populated areas have a choice between multiple ISP's, and the current Internet infrastructure doesn't make competition impossible. I am personally happy to accept minor throttling of less-demanded traffic so that the Internet can continue to innovate at the rate of consumer demand. Obviously emergency systems should be free of throttling, and educational facilities have a strong demand for neutral and reliable ISP's - companies and contracts will be more than happy to step up to this demand. I have a hard time seeing how a "right" to the Internet has any place in our law - is it because we need to regulate anything that passes a certain threshold of usefulness and profitability?