I really like the idea of at least letting local municipalities the ability to offer internet acc...

[G+_john ferris]

I really like the idea of at least letting local municipalities the ability to offer internet access. Here's a story http://consumerist.com/2015/01/23/senators-introduce-bill-to-block-states-from-blocking-public-broadband/

http://consumerist.com/2015/01/23/senators-introduce-bill-to-block-states-from-blocking-public-broadband/

[G+_john ferris]

Now that I think of it, the FEDs really shouldn't be involved. People at the state level a should lobby for this law as this seems more like a local problem not a federal one.

[G+_Eddie Foy]

'can't block lawful content' means they will block unlawful. What's unlawful content?  How will they know? DPI, deep packet inspection.  The equivalent of opening up a letter and reading it.  Net Neutrality is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[G+_Ben Reese]

I absolutely agree that this should stay on the local level instead of the federal level. Part of the problem is that local governments have allowed or even promoted monopolies to carriers who made promises they couldn't keep. For example, AT&T might tell Small-town, USA that they can only afford to provide the best of their service if Joe's ISP isn't allowed to come to town. And in exchange for that monopoly, they'll provide Gigabit Internet service to all government buildings within 5 years. After those 5 years are up though, Small-town has forgotten about the promise - and besides... 25 Mbps is fast enough...

The decision and control should stay local, but the local government needs to be better at making those decisions and holding their ISPs accountable to the promised service.