Regular readers of this column know I take a nuanced view when it comes to net neutrality: On one hand, carriers shouldn't be limiting or blocking traffic based on source, destination or traffic type, with the exception of traffic that clearly represents a hazard to the network or its users (such as malicious code attacking routers). On the other hand, providers have a right to charge differentiated rates for differentiated services, and users should choose whether they want best effort, guaranteed delivery or something in between. And providers should be able to charge heavy users rates commensurate with their usage.

What I'm unequivocal about is what Comcast has been doing to some of its users: blocking BitTorrent peer-to-peer traffic on the grounds that users were "consuming more bandwidth than they paid for." So I applaud the FCC's recent order that Comcast cease and desist doing so by year-end.

Some free marketeers say this decision represents an unwarranted incursion of the heavy hand of government regulation. Comcast's lawyers argue that the decision impairs Comcast's ability to manage its network.

They're both wrong. The FCC did exactly what it should have here: enforced a consumer's right to receive the services paid for. Users paid for high-bandwidth connections, which they were free to use to transmit whatever traffic they chose. And if they wanted to generate traffic 24/7 — so be it. That's what they bought the bandwidth for.

Even diehard libertarians have to admit that one of the government's few roles is to enforce contracts between buyers and sellers — exactly what the FCC's doing here. So the argument that this ruling represents unwarranted government intervention is specious.

As for Comcast's argument, it's downright idiotic. If Comcast didn't engineer its network to handle the traffic loads generated by its users — that's Comcast's problem. It's a bit like my local steakhouse complaining that they're all out of filet mignon, and asking me to accept hamburger instead. I'm as fond of a Whopper as the next gal, but if I'm paying for filet mignon, I expect to get it. If you don't have it, don't offer it.

The real issue — as I've said many times — is that no provider makes money on access services; at best they break even. Yet user appetite for bandwidth (at least with current pricing models) is essentially infinite. So providers are pressured into plowing all their network infrastructure dollars into marginless services — a great way to go broke.