I am all for keeping the Internet equal for all to use. I read the Net Neutrality information and always agree with freedom. The Internet is the best thing since sliced bread. I practically live there researching, studying, socializing, etc.

Unfortunately, the ISP business tends towards local monopolies because it runs over infrastructure that requires a high capital deployment cost, like cable. So there isn't really a free market here - your average user may have only one choice for broadband internet. It's therefore essential that you ensure unrestricted access.

(Librarian Geneva Alabama) 250 people just lost their jobs about 4 weeks ago. They made kevlar vests. Many of these employees don't have high school diplomas. Retail jobs require at least a GED. They come to our library to do job searches & study for GED.

Internet access was a luxury here before this economic mess. Now it is a choice between internet & food.

I am a library director in a rural town (Population 4300) - in Alabama. Our library has 5 public access computers. Last year they were checked out 3700 times. This year they were checked out 5700 times. These extra 2000 uses have really stressed our library. Our state funding dropped 5% in the first quarter. We anticipate an additional drop of 25% by 3rd Quarter.

The internet only thrives because of freedom of access. Thanks, Pres. Obama, for taking this so seriously.

It's not just about access, because we can rest assured that you will still be able to "see" all of the websites out there. However, will the high download speed be restricted to "premium" websites? Will certain domains require subscriber payment to our ISP? Will there be political motivations that decrease accessibility to some sites? What about the bandwidth throttling being done as we speak?

josephsack, almost everything the executive branch does directing policy involves working with the legislative branch to pass laws. The whole point of this is too see what issues the people care about so they can effectively try to push for appropriate legislation.

I wholeheartedly agree with this idea. But naysayers like kybernetikos have a point. I think that ISPs should have the freedom to sell whatever they want. However, anything less then unrestricted access should not be marketed as the internet, which makes the company something other then an Internet Service Provider.

It's time that we as a society realize that Internet access should be a public utility just like roads, water, etc... Leaving it in the hands of competitive markets ensures that it will be held back from the necessary expansion because of profit concerns. This is an area that needs to be invested in while maintaining the lowest cost to the public, which is exactly what the utility model does.

Suggest also addressing limiting access for children:
One possibility is to provide liability protection to Internet providers so that they can provide effective limits.

Wouldn't this issue be something for congress to legislate? While I agree with the principles of network neutrality, it seems out of the scope of what the executive branch could implement.

In theory I'd agree with kybernetikos that a contract which clearly states lower priority of specific data types should be okay. In practice, this doesn't work. It means all competitors would do the same thing - slowing down voice, video, p2p, and other data, because you simply wouldn't be able to find an ISP who didn't. If they are allowed to do it, ALL will do it, and there will be no choice.

I don't believe that it's necessary for the end networks to be content unaware. e.g. I think it's fine for an ISP to prioritise voice or video packets, as long as that is clearly indicated when you buy their deal. What is important is that the carrier doesn't prioritise packets based on their origin or destination.

I believe we also need to get our broadband speeds up to date with modern world, as we are falling behind to almost every other first world country. It's time we replace all of our lines with fiber optics or something better

Not to pigeon hole the scope, but leveraging the soon to be available analog television spectrum white space would be a great place to start. The key would be to provide the service at no charge. I'm sure implementation parallels could be drawn from President Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System.

The interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution is the perfect avenue for bringing such a change. Just like roads, network wires must belong to the people.

Oh, and this kind of freedom of information is very much in the US's strategic interests.

Not just in the US but globally. Creating a global neutral infrastructure will circumvent national censorship initiatives.Wireless broadband does not respect borders. The great firewall of China is effective only so long as Chinese users are forced to use the Chinese servers of China's internet backbone. This should be global in scope.