Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23 (theverge.com) 237
The Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules will be no more in two months, as the agency takes the final step in removing the regulation from its rule book. From a report: The date -- April 23 -- was revealed today after the Federal Communication Commission's order revoking net neutrality was published in the Federal Register. You can read the full order here. The publication means that a new fight around net neutrality is about to begin. States and other parties will be able to sue over the rules -- some have already gotten started -- and a battle in Congress will kick off over a vote to reverse the order entirely. While that fight likely won't get far in Congress since Republicans by and large oppose net neutrality and control both chambers, there will likely be a long and heated legal battle around the corner for the FCC's new policy. The FCC's new rules are really a lack of rules. Its "Restoring Internet Freedom" order entirely revokes the strong net neutrality regulations put in place back in 2015 and replaces them with basically nothing. Internet providers can now block, throttle, and prioritize content if they want to. The only real rule here is that they have to disclose if they're doing any of this.
Already begun (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MSDGA!
Make SlashDot Great Again! Before it's too late...
Re: (Score:2)
Make SlashDot Great Again! Before it's too late...
Again implies that it was great previously...
Re: (Score:3)
During its hay-day back in the late 1990's and early 2000's. Slashdot was a big name on the Tech-Blogs and many message boards were based on Slashcode. The user level moderation was a huge feature....
What happened?
Well slashcode didn't really get as well updated compared to others, there was a big fight about a beta version (so its style and influence diminished) However I expect the nature of technology had changed, moving from personal big equipment. Large Desktop towers filled to the brim with the lates
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
Throw out the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Republican politicians are paid not to understand that utilities such as Comcast and Verizon were heavily subsidized by taxpayers to create the foundation of their service, and hence need to be regulated so that they don't just do whatever the heck they want to make the most coin for themselves.
And of course it's the same with gun control, with the NRA; with climate change, with the fossil fuel industries; and with food safety, with big agriculture.
Not saying Democratic politicians are more ethical, but their traditional big money interest (organized labor) is frankly dying anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course it's the same with gun control, with the NRA; with climate change, with the fossil fuel industries; and with food safety, with big agriculture.
Since Republicans are wrong on all major issues, it's a wonder it hasn't happened already.
Re: (Score:2)
Republican politicians are paid not to understand that utilities such as Comcast and Verizon were heavily subsidized by taxpayers to create the foundation of their service, and hence need to be regulated so that they don't just do whatever the heck they want to make the most coin for themselves.
And of course it's the same with gun control, with the NRA; with climate change, with the fossil fuel industries; and with food safety, with big agriculture.
Not saying Democratic politicians are more ethical, but their traditional big money interest (organized labor) is frankly dying anyway.
The Democrats are now very well funded by big money (remember Hillary's versus Trump's campaign chests?). Think Google/Alphabet or Amazon (Washington Post). The days of labor vs. capital are long gone.
Since you strayed into "gun control," how many millions of people have been killed by U.S. citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment right to self-defense? Now how many millions of people have been killed by guns wielded by soldiers in the employ of governments? Was the U.S. "Civil War" started by people exe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws that wouldn't have stopped the last shooting.
I'm more interested in stopping the NEXT shooting. That means looking at more incidents than just the single most recent.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the proposed law wouldn't have stop the last shooting how would it have stopped the next shooting?
Mass shootings from the mentally ill are rare and are damn near impossible to predict. At least we know that the FBI and law enforcement are doing a shit job enforcing existing law. There might be something to address there and that has the potential to "do something" more so than any gun ban that we hear paraded by media.
Something changed in our culture and it wasn't the guns.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If the proposed law wouldn't have stop the last shooting how would it have stopped the next shooting?
Nothing will stop the next shooting; there will be another. But that doesn't mean that trying won't help. The Florida shooter did not use a bump stock (correct me if I'm wrong.) That was the last shooting. The Mandalay Bay shooter did use a bump stock. It seems likely that the damage he did would have been reduced if he hadn't had one. So, banning bump stocks has nothing to do with the last shooting, but seems like a reasonable idea. Nobody's hunting deer with a bump stock. I don't need a bump stock to defe
Re: (Score:2)
Banning a bumpstock is about trying to get to the same existing law we have i.e. fully automatic weapons are banned that nearly everyone agree with. You aren't banning the gun that encroaches on the rights of law biding citizens.
because I'm a pot smoker. Still, handing a gun to me is a MUCH better idea than handing it to a deranged, violent teen.
I am going to guess you have a criminal record with pot is why you would bring that up. Go figure a criminal can't own a gun, are you saying they should? There are ways to reclaim rights after committing a crime. I would have to look into specifics for guns and specific for state la
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to guess you have a criminal record with pot is why you would bring that up. Go figure a criminal can't own a gun, are you saying they should?
No record worse than a couple of traffic tickets. See here [washingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I see. I think a lot of the laws around pot are dumb but the federal law in question seems like a "common sense" that we hear so much about.
"unlawful user and/or addict of any controlled substance".
Obviously pot isn't the same as crack or cocaine but do you want a crack head to buy a gun?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously pot isn't the same as crack or cocaine but do you want a crack head to buy a gun?
Or an alcoholic?
Re: (Score:2)
-.- ... What is a controlled substance?
You say you want common sense laws and now you are going beyond common sense because you are now ignoring legal definitions to make a flippant point. Do you want to argue about which substance is "controlled" or do you want to discuss what is common sense gun law?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that keeping guns out of the hands of drunks makes MUCH more sense than keeping it away from pot smokers. A history of DUIs should be weighted MUCH more heavily than having a medical marijuana patient card. Why does the definition of "controlled" change what's dangerous?
Re: (Score:2)
Is alcohol a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling?
Is pot a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling?
If the government classifies a drug should that classification be used in determining purchase of a gun?
If there are problems with that classification process should that classification be ignored?
https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/c... [dea.gov]
You are not making a point. You are being pedantic. It's annoying. I am done.
Re: (Score:2)
And you're making the point that once the word "controlled" is introduced, all common sense goes out the window. Thank you for being done. This has gotten annoying.
Is alcohol a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling?
Is pot a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling?
Who cares? The word "controlled" is not magic. A history of DUIs should contribute MUCH more to being precluded from gun ownership than a history of pot smoking. Same with legal opioid abuse. I don't give a shit which drug is "controlled" or "scheduled". I care about which drug contributes most to irresponsible gun use.
Re: (Score:2)
I care about which drug contributes most to irresponsible gun use.
Hmmm. If only there were a way to classify drugs that the government and law makers could use as a starting point to address irresponsibility because it would be common sense to say X classification is potentially irresponsible. HMMMMMM. I WONDER WHAT THAT WOULD BE LIKE. So what your saying is that alcohol should be a schedule 1 controlled substance.
No no. even if that classification did exist better to have our own list because my super genius common sense says it would be easier to go through every drug a
Re: (Score:2)
Damn it, I thought you said you were done...
So what your saying is that alcohol should be a schedule 1 controlled substance.
I said nothing of the sort. I said that where a drug lands on the Fed's "schedule" is unimportant to its relation to responsible gun use. That's not what the schedule is for. If habitual drunks are a bigger danger concerning guns than pot smokers (they are) then habitual alcohol abuse should be considered with more weight than pot smoking. I think I've said this more than once. Making alcohol Schedule 1 makes about as much sense as making weed Schedule 1 (none). I
Re: (Score:2)
It's a failure of addressing certain records in a background check. Is it a violation of your 4th amendment if your history of mental illness show up in a routine background check? I am going to guess there might be some HIPAA laws there to protect your privacy which make the issue more complicated in that regard.
I don't want to lose my right to a gun just because I used some anti-depressants. Or because I at one point was suffering depression and decided to ask for outside help. Mental health already has a
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I think the point is that whatever shows up in the background check there should be some kind of Whole-Person concept [clearancejobs.com] much like we do with a security clearance. Spotting red flags is one part in determining the "whole person" as a risk to themselves or others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The last 2 shootings would have been prevented if the FBI would just follow through with the existing laws and procedures. That is the saddest part of a tragic situation. What we don't need is more political grandstanding and passing legislation that fails to address the underlying issues. If the individual doing the shooting has been reported to the FBI but they fail to follow though how is that going to help anyone ?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you need more FBI agents. Perhaps a 1:1 ratio of agents vs citizens will allow vetting of everyone. Can always expand the definition of mentally ill to voted for the wrong party and create some camps to keep them in while about it. Perhaps call them gulags and locate them in Alaska.
It would be worth it to preserve the freedoms of Americans and its not like you can't borrow more money to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What we don't need is more political grandstanding and passing legislation that fails to address the underlying issues.
Like the underlying issue that it is easier to get a deadly weapon in this country than it is to get alcohol?
Re: (Score:2)
The percentage of murders committed by males has always been much higher than females. I doubt that it has changed much even as the overall murder rate has been trending down for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Buying a guy is already illegal in the US and has been for like 150 years (politicians excepted.) I understand that Nevada has places where you can rent one.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, the latest shooter had a brush with law enforcement about 10 weeks ago [nypost.com], over brandishing firearms and threatening to shoot people. But the police in Broward County decided to let him off the hook because he had a tough life. Imagine if they actually had done what the law required (at least arrest, and conduct an investigation about ownership of the firearms), there might be 17 more children alive today.
But hey, let's not worry about warning signs like threatening to shoot people, let's focus o
Re: (Score:2)
...let's focus on an inanimate object instead.
What about "that means looking at more incidents than just the single most recent" made you think I was focused on guns? Guns have been all over the US for far longer than this barrage of mass shootings. Some gun limitations (I'm thinking Mandalay Bay bump stock) could reduce the level of success the shooters have, but as long as people are deciding to commit mass murder there will continue to be mass murders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more interested in stopping the NEXT shooting.
Dude. It was sold to Apple in 1998.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. Why try? Let's start handing out pistols when kids get their driver's license and let them fend for themselves! NOTHING is going to prevent the next shooting, but handing an AR-15 to a mentally deranged teenager with a history of threatening violence seems like a common-sense bad idea.
It confuses me that some of our lawmakers are saying that laws are pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not pointless, Just ineffective.
The sad truths about the next shooter (and there will be another):
1. Has already purchased the weapon they will use.
2. Is already known to law enforcement.
3. COULD have been stopped, but was overlooked as a risk.
So enact your laws, just accept the fact that gun control laws are not going to be enough either in the short or long terms. We have got to do more than just control the sale and position of firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
mentally deranged teenager
He was an adult. And also a Teenager. Saying "Teenager" makes it sound like he was 13 and not 19 (six years, and legal status change different).
IF you want to raise the age to purchase guns, then say so. AND I might even agree with you, if you are willing to make 21 the age of adulthood, and restrict all adult activities to that age (Smoking, Drinking, Sex, Voting etc).
Re: (Score:2)
I might even agree with you, if you are willing to make 21 the age of adulthood, and restrict all adult activities to that age (Smoking, Drinking, Sex, Voting etc).
Why do you feel like these things should coincide? Driving? Working? Renting a car? Running for president?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Good thing that is already against the law.
Every media report I've seen said that the rifle was purchased legally. Are they mistaken? I don't claim to be an expert on gun law.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact: in 2016 he was taken to a mental health facility for examination. The mental health facility did not report this to the feds' NICS system. Had they done so, it would have shown up on his background check, and he would not have been able to buy the gun.
Fact: The NRA has been advocating making it mandatory for states to report criminal and mental health records to the federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact: He lied on his form 4473 for the gun purchase. Specifically to question 11f, which is illegal and makes that an illegal gun purchase.
Laws do not prevent crime, laws simply punish those who commit an act that violates sed law.
Re: (Score:3)
As it stands now it is illegal for a "mentally deranged teenager" from owning a gun.
The second amendment says otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Footnote: It's illegal for anyone under 21 to buy handgun ammunition. The .223 ammo used by the AR15 is classified as handgun ammunition.
Couldn't he just buy 5.56 NATO? (Score:3)
One more thing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious what your suggestion is for a course of action that will compel law enforcement and the FBI to act before another one of these happens, and not just assign blame afterwards. How can one strengthen that law to the point where it would be effective? Just a reminder, if you're answer is tort, then you are probably conceding that this has to happen AT LEAST one more time before the deterrent is effective.
Re: (Score:2)
what your suggestion is for a course of action that will compel law enforcement and the FBI to act before another one of these happens, and not just assign blame afterwards. How can one strengthen that law to the point where it would be effective?
I am not exactly sure what your asking but proper penalties for any agency that does not file the appropriate records to the appropriate bureaucracy that handles any requests for a background associated with such sales or any agency that fails to appropriately act on those records. Are you asking for what is a proper penalty, if we should have a penalty or who is liable for a penalty to incentivize proper record keeping? Or are you asking about auditing any process, agency, and transfers of liability to app
Re: (Score:2)
It is far easier to enforce "Don't sell this person a gun" than it is to enforce "Don't misuse that gun in your closet."
Re: (Score:2)
1) Yes because it is a constitutional right.
It's a right "of the people to keep and bear Arms"*, so we'll just say that means only non-lethal weapons.
Oh? Don't like that the defintion changed? OK, well then we'll make "bare arms" mean exclusively the 200+ year old muskets and rifles of the time.
* it also mentions "A well regulated Militia" yet regulation is always seen as a bad word.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's start handing them semi-automatic pistols when they enrol in kindergarten.
Only 2 guns for the whole class. They need to learn sharing.
Re: (Score:2)
Children and guns are a bad idea. Your average firearm is too unwieldy for a typical child to operate in a safe and effective manner.
Children are much better suited to crew served weapons. The simi-stationary mortar or heavy machine gun relies less on physical strength and builds teamwork.
Re: (Score:3)
West Palm Beach, Florida has a higher murder rate than Chicago. So do Dayton, Ohio, Savannah, Georgia and 22 other US cities.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Chigago's gun laws have been neutered considerably over the last 4 years. City laws are never going to matter when you can drive 20 minutes outside town to get a gun. Any actual restrictions would have to be enacted on the national level to have an effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, murder rate means how many murders per 100,000 people, not the total number of murders. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Fox News.
http://fox6now.com/2016/11/02/... [fox6now.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, from your own site... [neighborhoodscout.com]
Disingenous and stupid arguments (Score:2)
Between the two parties the democrats take the cake on uninformed
Maybe but I'll take honestly uninformed over the disingenuously lying and/or crazy any day of the week. And the gun lobby is both disingenuous and crazy.
Laws that wouldn't have stopped the last shooting
So what? That's like arguing that we shouldn't have traffic laws because people still commit traffic violations. That's a straw man argument.
Trying to ban a gun that isn't responsible for 99% of gun deaths.
So we shouldn't ban guns that no civilian needs any legitimate purpose? Claiming you need an AR15 for "self defense" is ridiculous. Pretending you are going to use it to "protect your rights" even more so. Just b
Re: (Score:2)
So we shouldn't ban guns that no civilian needs any legitimate purpose? Claiming you need an AR15 for "self defense" is ridiculous.
The entire point of the 2nd Amendment is to make certain that civilians were allowed to own standard-issue military firearms of the day so that they could be called on as the unorganized militia if needed or to resist the government if it goes rogue, and to protect one's home and family as every individual is a first-responder, police are second-responders.
The average mass-shooter is finished within 2-4 minutes. The fastest average police response times in the US are at least 5 minutes-plus, and typically m
Re: (Score:2)
There is VAST evidence that reducing numbers of guns available results in reduced gun crime.
These arguments have always pissed me off because the metric itself is obviously bullshit and completely meaningless.
What people in the real world care about is NOT getting killed or injured not so much HOW they are killed or injured.
If your going to conduct or cite a study that says less guns results in reduced crime or reduced death or injury then god bless make THAT argument.
Saying less guns result in less gun crimes is no different than saying less Fords results in reduced death or injury involving Ford
Bill ISPs ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the ISPs are no longer Common Carriers, can i bill AT&T for the use of my land for their buried cable and distribution box in my front yard given that i'm not their customer ? :)
$10/day/feet sounds reasonable
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then they get fucked for trespass to chattels.
Re: (Score:2)
If only I had mod points! +1 Insightful!
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. It's uninformed drivel. It's about as insightful as a potato.
Easement does not require common carrier status.
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of easements?
You don't have to be a customer for someone to be able to use your land for a specific purpose. You don't have to be common carrier to have an easement claim. I have had wire buried in my neighbors yard. I didn't have to ask. They didn't have a right to stop me or the company laying the wire. If they destroy the wire the police can be called for destruction of property by the owner of the wire (telecom).
Re: Bill ISPs ? (Score:2)
Yes, hence why this whole debate is largely overblown.
With the Obama NN rules, providers got to legally zero rate traffic (eg TMobile/Netflix fast lane) which was effectively at the expense of smaller data generators that couldn't afford the fees, the customer would get charged more for using non-Netflix services.
Now the carriers have to once again choose between prioritizing paid traffic and losing common carrier status.
The fact that TWC/Charter/Verizon let their POP at the IX run at 100% capacity hasn't c
Re:Bill ISPs ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Geez, people! Chill! It's not like the internet prior to 2015 under Obama was some hellish totalitarian/dystopian nightmare.
Maybe because NN rules were put in place, because some ISP were definitely becoming... unfair, for lack of a better word.
Guess we'll find out soon enough. Hope you enjoy paying to access your favorite websites. Roll out the walled gardens, it's coming. Unless lawmakers come up with some new regulations, you can bet your panties ISP's will run and run hard with their new found freedom. They going to want to entrench non-neutrality practices as quickly as possible to make it that much more difficult to reverse. Once they are entrenched, they can bellyache how new regulations will wreck their business model, stifling any hopes of restoring neutrality.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem was Netflix was demanding free bandwidth ("peering") from Comcast, who, uncharacteristically, wasn't the asshole in that exchange.
Sorry, but you should realize if you are saying that Comcast wasn't the asshole, then you're probably wrong.
Netflix wasn't demanding anything from anyone. Comcast was demanding that Netflix pay them a bribe to do the job they are paid to do by their actual customers.
My god, this should be common sense. People pay Comcast to deliver internet service to them. Netflix charges it's customers to send them the movies and shows they ask for. Netflix pays it's ISP to send that data. Comcast's customers are al
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC was enforcing Net Neutrality regulations on ISPs. In 2014 the DC District Court ruled that the FCC could not regulate ISPs unless they first classified them as Title II Common Carriers [wikipedia.org], which meant the Net Neutrality regulations would be void. This was the 2015 fight: to get the FCC to reclassify ISPs.
You'd know all this if you were'n't a bloody idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Mini poll (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this going to change how anyone votes? Will you be voting against a candidate because of this? Will you vote in a party primary? Will you vote in other elections you otherwise wouldn't (like mid terms) or be voting for the first time in years?
No, because even if you do buy into the rhetoric that the sky is falling, this has to be one of the least consequential reasons to suddenly become a single-issue voter.
Vote in your primary (Score:2)
So let me make sure I understand... (Score:2)
The last mile to my home: *RAGETROLLFACE* RRRRRAWWWWRRR MUH INTERNETZ!!
PaaS/IaaS/SaaS/APIs: Tell us what to do and we'll go Galt on you/It's our property, just build your own multi-billion dollar platform.
Considering the fact that we have muncipalities in banjo territory building their own ISPs, makes you kinda wonder if the real area where the net needed to be neutral wasn't further up the stack...
Magnet/BitTorrent (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering several high-profile online multiplayer games download and update via torrents, good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the whole point, they'll get paid off by EA Origin and tell Steam to get bent or whatever. If they were only mucking with stuff no one cared about there's nothing for them to gain from it.
I think Steam is all direct download.
Re: (Score:2)
"Absent any regulations, your options will be limited to ... suck it up princess ... and signing a document saying you promise not to use it for anything related to copyright infringement and pay extra."
Ahh, that'd be tortious interference of contract between me and the companies I'm legally paying. No.
"Do you not grasp that consumers are about to get royally fucked with this change"
Do you not grasp that consumers won't get fucked by this change if they bothered to read and understand the fucking law, which
Bad Headline (Score:2)
This story is misleading on the date. The congressional review act allows them to repeal the rule within 60 LEGISLATIVE days of Congress receiving the rule (days the chambers are in session), not calendar. The rule can go into effect within 60 calendar days depending on certain criteria, but the review act should be duly noted.
Only Federal Rules Die. Let the states regulate NN (Score:4)
The GOP says it supports state's rights. Time for them to put up or shut up.
We're reading it wrong. (Score:2)
Its "Restoring Internet Freedom" order entirely revokes the strong net neutrality regulations put in place back in 2015 and replaces them with basically nothing. Internet providers can now block, throttle, and prioritize content if they want to. The only real rule here is that they have to disclose if they're doing any of this.
And the FCC's intention is disclosed in the document title, we're just reading it wrong. They're restoring freedom to the ISPs and corporations, not consumers. Bribes, kickbacks and revolving-door jobs for the people in charge of the FCC are more valuable than their tax-payer funded jobs. /cynical
Benefits those of us who don't use Netflix (Score:2)
One of issues cited by cable providers is the explosive growth in Netflix and other streaming use. The existing system was never designed for this high bandwidth use. It was assumed people would get most video from the cable companies own service and that cable modem would be mostly for static content and short pieces of video, with brief bursts, not continuous high bandwidth streams and so on. So the growth in netflix, in order for cable companies to be able to keep up with demand, and to prevent congestio
Re: (Score:3)
Net neutrality is an issue of fairness and greed. Without net neutrality Comcast can make Netflix run slowly for their customers because Comcast would prefer you purchase their crappy cable TV package instead. And since Comcast has a monopoly in many places
Re: (Score:2)
Its true they could offer some tiers that are for burst use and some that are for continuous streaming. The burst plan would allow for burst downloads but would have a throttle algorithm, while a continuous bandwidth plan would be more expensive but have no throttle. The burst plans are for people that dont do a lot of streaming but want downloads and page loads to run fast. None of this requires any destination based rules that would discriminate against one site or another, and would not require an obnox
Re: (Score:2)
"And the overwhelmingly vast majority of people will not notice any difference whatsoever and wouldn't know it happened unless somebody told them."
If by that you mean people who don't look at their ever creeping upwards cable bill, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
What does net neutrality have to do with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous Coward tries to make a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
I really cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
Re: (Score:2)
...the healthiest citizens...
That should have given it away.
Re: (Score:2)
lowest crime rates
The 16,000 people shot dead in the USA by a gun in 2017 would very much like to dispute that.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the half a million killed by cigarettes every year!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Put me in a padded cell and lock the door! I am scared of life. Protect me bubble wrap.
Re: (Score:2)
"Protect me bubble wrap."
You say while it suffocates you!
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, aren't you guys always the ones trying to convince us you need your guns to protect yourselves from the big scary world?
Re: (Score:2)
I am multiple people, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question here. If the Internet and all its benefits wasn't killed off by whatever Net Neutrality rules were set to counter, why will their removal have different effects?
The problem as I see it is couched in continuation of nonstop aggregation of the service provider market now well into its second decade coupled with imminent collapse of cable television.
We are starting to see not just mega consolidation of mega ISPs but vertical integration as ISP and their parent corporations control and seek to leverage massive and growing content portfolios.
Personally I would love to see NN without Title II or basically all ISPs more than some arbitrary number of subs broken up into li