So, government can make all of these problems go away? Unfortunately, the net neturality debate, at present, centers around whether or not the government should intervene in the issue of net neutrality. That's where I have a problem. Until this point, the Internet has benefitted from the absence of governmental intrusion. To date, I have not seen any reason for the government to get involved here.

I normally would agree with you, but in this instance cable and phone companies have already taken steps to block access to competing services or charge extra fees for it. Look at the Comcast blog written by Brian Ward or the example of Shaw Telecom in Canada charging users extra if they want to use a different VoIP service.
Typically I would argue that those affected should switch providers, but that's a challenge when it comes to broadband. I live just outside of Austin, but until a couple of weeks ago could only get Time Warner as my broadband provider. We now have the option of DSL from AT&T, but I'm not sold on their speeds, plus dislike AT&T customer service. If Time Warner blocks or slows my content, I know Ed Whitacre won't be sympathetic, so where do I turn if I want to use Vonage or get decent access to sites run by companies that can’t afford to pay for higher quality access?
And that's why I think government has a role to play. Consumers are powerless in a fight like this and ultimately it’s the smaller players in the market that will suffer. Google can afford to pay out for faster packet delivery, but a startup or even a non profit Web site can't.
Government regulation is what enabled goods to get across the country more economically back in the 1800s when it mandated the width of train tracks. That was bad for the railroad guys but good for millions of merchants trying to get goods across the country and for consumers who saw lower costs on those goods. Government intervention when it comes to tiered internet access may not be great for the broadband companies, but won’t put them out of business and will be better overall for innovation and business. The danger is if government goes too far beyond mandating net neutrality and starts tossing in perks or unnecessary regulations benefiting few constituents.

To be fair Stacey, America can't be responsible for the questionable practices of Canadian companies. Besides, the FCC has already stepped in once to stop a company that had committed a questionable action regarding the limiting of content. In general there isn't a problem. Even should the three telecos listed above actually own 49% of the communication market, that's still under half and there is no reason to believe in any conspiracy among them to destroy the internet. They are as susceptible to the demands of consumers as any other company. Trusting in the free-market is the key to the continued success of the internet.

Allowing some providers a "competitive advantage" will only force all providers to increase the quality of their service. Just look at how connection speeds have increased over the last 10 years. The introduction of broadband and DSL access forced basic dial up connections to speed up. Government regulations did not achieve this improvement, the market did. The free market has made the internet what it is today and there is no reason to deviate now.

Exactly, John! The free market will not tolerate a company "squeezing its pipes" nor will the FCC...so why allow Congress to regulate an industry that has done so well in their absence?!

I don't see how the consumer is powerless in this situation, Stacey. Just the opposite, in fact. If I can't surf the net, shop online, download video, or share my files as freely and quickly as I think I should, I'll simply change my service to someone who will let me do just that. And if I feel like paying extra for an upgraded service, who's to say that I can't? Options are key here, and our options will be few if regulatin becomes reality.