A San Francisco-based Comcast subscriber has filed a lawsuit and is seeking class-action status against his Internet Service Provider for actively interfering with his ability to access the Internet. We all saw this coming, but I don't see how this can end well for Comcast.

Whenever I try to explain net neutrality issues to a non-techie, I always the analogy of the phone company. If you pay the phone company $50/month to connect you to the internet-work of telephones, you expect that you can call any telephone number and speak about any topic, right? They usually nod their head. Okay, now how about if you wanted to call someone else and talk about illegal activities, such as selling copies of copyrighted work--would the phone company allow that call to take place? Most certainly they would--they are a telephony service provider as much as Comast is an Internet service provider. The whole purpose of the utility (be it telephone, electric, or Internet) is reliable connection to said service. Once the utility company (service provider) begins filtering what you can and cannot do with the service, it becomes quite a different issue.

What do you readers think of the phone company analogy? Why is it incorrect or is it right on the money?