>>8
True, to an extent, however the infrastructure of the internet is a very changeable thing. If the seven or so Tier 1 providers decide to start being assholes and content providers, the content providers will simply peer with more Tier 2 networks (most content providers already have these) and eventually they will all (hopefully) begin to allow each other to build routes to other Tier 2 providers. In this day and age, it would be possible, if not entirely feasible, to do away with the Tier 1 providers, and in fact nearly all Internet providers that are not content companies themselves. Naturally, ISPs could still pull this crap on the user end, but then one would figure out that they could get cheaper access to the content company/Tier 2 providers that they need to access the rest of the Internet by not shaping traffic, and from there economics would take over.

This is not particularly likely to happen, but it would be nice. But for now, be glad that (in the US) traffic shaping by so-called "common carrier" providers is still illegal. It's allowed in New Zealand, and a friend there hates how it wrecks havoc on torrents, as well as other content. He can't afford the special unshaped Internet connection. Welcome to perfect capitalism - a price discrimination monopoly where the people who just aren't rich enough get fucked over.

>>12
Greetings from yankistan. You've got a point, but Net Neutrality is a problem for everyone. Like your google.dk or .co.uk or .fr or what have you? Try a traceroute. I guarantee it'll go through at least two US carriers on its way. Yeah, it's an issue taking place on US ground. I'll remind you that the Nazi invasion at first took place in continental Europe. It wound up causing problems the world over - the Americas, Africa, Asia - everywhere. Granted, unfair internet use is nothing compared to the death of millions because of a charismatic sociopath with a superiority complex, but hopefully you get my point.