I was struck by recent statements by Department of Justice on net neutrality. They are comparing it to the US postal service, by saying there is nothing unusual about the practice of
setting different levels of service and pricing. Here's why I think it is a dum-dum comparison:

Number 1: Let's say you send a letter. You buy a stamp and mail, the adressee does not have to share the cost, does she? So, why the hell do they want to charge people for their DSL or cable internet and also get money out of content providers, like Google? This is where I think the analogy breaks down.

Number 2: Even if postal service charges both ends for the delivery of a letter, it is still not the same. As I recall, we have USPS, UPS, FedEx, DHL, Airborne Express and others operating nationwide. With the internet, most people have their monstrous cable company and even more monstrous phone company. And neither is in favour of net neutrality. So, where will the competition come from?

Number 3: Imagine a mess it will create, based on all the existing combinations of provider and content type! Comcast users will get slow YouTube, because they didn't pay, but relatively fast ITunes. Customers of ATT will get an ok videos, but slow songs or torrents?!

This is a clear case where the government regulators should step in. Enough of this free competition nonsense, we already have a di-poly in most spheres, with one or two huge corporations virtually prohibiting any healthy competition from the outside!