the question regarding Net Neutrality is whether the Internet in the US should be considered a utility, like water, gas, electricity or not. Net Neutrality supporters think it should be, and regulated thus. Opponents of NN want to leave control in the hands of the providers.

My biggest worry with Net Neutrality is that some dumbass in power will interpret as transit providers MUST provide bandwidth/facilities to a Walt Rines/Sanford Wallace type spamming pig. I think it was the lack of transit providers compounded by IP blacklisting that put AGIS (Apex Group Internet Services), the providers of Wallace's CyberPromo out of business.

I'm Republican and like most of what Trump has done, but I am FOR Net Neutrality.


Ending neutrality will allow ISP's to sell bandwidth - that we already pay for.
It'll be sold out from under us, and we'll be charged through the nose to buy our own bandwidth back. That, through fees, we paid for the infrastructure that carries it.

We could be charged for different internet use - for example plus your basic fee you pay now, extra would be charged for gaming access, video streaming/downloading, email access, social media access etc. ISP's could split it up like that and charge us for each.

ISP's could slow down or block any website that they don't like or that doesn't pay them. This will result in slower or even no access to most places you like to visit, and larger/more fees to, again, buy our own bandwidth back.

You know all the things we connect to the internet as a matter of course? No charge or limit?
Those days could be gone. You will be charged monthly for each phone, tablet, thermostat, every router, on and on that you connect to the internet. Think about that. You could be tightly limited in which devices are allowed.

We could see tiered internet packages being sold to us with website access limited to whatever the ISP's choose. Imagine that.

No net neutrality would stifle businesses that can't pay to play. It could be used politically, to slow down or block the opposition.

The only rational reason to be against Net Neutrality is because you are heavily invested in the stocks of large ISPs.

The current head of the FCC tried to justify opposition to net neutrality by claiming several small ISP companies decided to put infrastructure improvements on hold after net neutrality was adopted. These small companies only control a very small share of the ISP market. Most is controlled by a few giants which have monopoly powers. Further it was known the FCC net neutrality rule would be challenged, so delaying improvements made sense. The FCC head also tried to argue that their rules that would replace net neutrality would include consumer protections which could be enforced through the FTC. He neglected to mention the FTC's authority to enforce similar rules was being challenged, and if the challenge was successful the consumer protections would be meaningless.

.
yes, well i'm sure you'll email that to your senator, to comlain about internet speech
.

It was Bill Clinton administration that put net browsing cell phones into the hands of kids with a mere warning to parents "their children might be abducted by prostitute rings or view porn"

Nothing was done to prevent it: IT WAS ALL AIMED AT SALES

china and others regularly attack USA's computer users and also USA's telephone infrastructure

in the past an end user could determine who (which pc) originated the attack and call police

that isn't allowed anymore: and that's how big companies and big government wants it: a monologue of rich political magnates who can send any lie anywhere with zero liability of being known as "the sender" or "the blocker"