Same. "Net neutrality" was the first step toward governmental oversight, just like the phone companies. Title 2 was written for the phone companies and that was exactly what the government was beginning to apply to the internet. While I can see people afraid that providers will try to charge more for certain services/sites, I can also see how the government would be able to strangle innovation and tax the internet to death as well.
Time will tell what will actually come about.
I'm sure companies like verizon and comcast are trustworthy and won't seek to manipulate things for their own gain without any oversight
...or maybe, these kind of companies have already shown again and again they'll totally ****ing screw you any chance they get, from "data caps" to "available bandwidth" to "convenience fees". You have to be a special kinda person to think these companies will act in a responsible and ethical manner IMO. I don't know how many examples we need to have that show an unregulated market anywhere is a terrible idea, but apparently it's not been enough to get through to some yet
Well here's the deal, we've only had "net neutrality" for 2 years and it's not even what people make it out to be. DId we get surcharges for specific network traffic 2 years ago and prior? No. Were AT&T and Comcast still **** companies the previous 2 years? Yes. Were they still pulling ridiculous bull**** during these previous 2 years? Yes.
Here's some proof of that
**.
What people aren't seeing (naturally) is the actual truth behind what's really going on. What
IS "net neutrality"? Net neutrality is actually only a Title 2 classification of broadband. Nothing more. It made it like a regular utility, and among the other positives that it did bring (and didn't change anything), it made it so 3rd party companies can utilize utility poles and underground fiber infrastructure without royalties or fees. What did this mean for companies like AT&T and Comcast? A 3rd party company could run their own fiber without paying for the underlying cost of running utility infrastructure (underground pipes, telephone poles, etc) and severely undercut the competition by a great margin. Google showed the US how good the internet could be, then the Obama Administration made so it could be possible across the country. Dickbutt Teleco could string some fiber up in a few months (theoretically of course) and offer Gigabit internet to a city for $50 without a contractual agreement and no datacap. This greatly makes the big 3 lose customers, much like the few cities running Google FIber. Time Warner in a few areas bumped their packages without charging extra and then AT&T as a kneejerk reaction (reminds me of Intel) said K well here's Gigapower. I think a city in Tennessee or one of those states a provider offered 10Gb. At first it wasn't a big deal, then Verizon sold a lot of fiber in a few states and Frontier took over making AT&T and TWC actually offer their bigger services to bigger metro areas like NYC and DFW/Houston (which is why I have Gigapower). A 3rd party company randomly rolled out Gigabit internet for stupid cheap where KrazyQ is (I specifically remember being jealous about it), and there are more examples I can't think of around the country. With the fiber race going on and T-Mobile doing their thing as the "uncarrier" AT&T specifically started to lose cash. I'm pretty sure this Phai guy (or whatever his name is) is being heavily lobbied by AT&T and Comcast specifically (Comcast offering 1Gb and 2Gb packages here and there) to have this Title 2 rolled back so they can go back to being scumbags on internet packages. It costs them a **** ton to roll out infrastructure to properly handle 100+ Mb packages to combat 3rd party companies AND lower pricing at the same time. They want to go back to offering 100Mb and below **** for $100 while their NOC sits on their *** not needing to monitor packet flow. TItle 2 also takes away the gang/mafia styled turf war in areas meaning 3rd party companies not only don't have to pay the big names money to offer services in their area (or auction like cell stuff) but they also don't have to put up their own utility backbone, they can piggyback off what's already there. These 2 things alone warded off real competition, exactly what the big names want to go back to.
The second deal every single site I've read (and social media argument) has failed to mention is the definition of broadband. More specifically what's fundamentally "required" or "deemed necessary" for a broadband classification, and standardization. In 2015 the definition was raised from 4/1Mb to 25/3Mb. What did this do? Make 90% of AT&T's Uverse packages false advertisement (and a lot of others). Why? Because Uverse 2Wire had a maximum of 18Mb to 90% or more of their customers as a FTTN setup. All of their PR and marketing is now obsolete because it now isn't legally considered "broadband". AT&T and Verizon both specifically hated this as their DSL service was now not considered true broadband. These schmucks kept wanting to say that a 4Mb connection in 2015 was perfectly fine for ALL internet needs and that the standard should not be raised. Guess what? Now the lowest packages offered are 25Mb in most metro areas and they had to essentially raise them without charge to the customer. To areas that could not be upgraded to 25Mb (again, all Uverse 2Wire) they basically added a **** ton of bundles with no extra cost in hopes that people wouldn't go "hey wait a minute". In all of the tin foil hat nonsense bull**** I've seen online I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere. Feel free to correct me because I've only looked at a few. A revert on Title 2 essentially means they don't have to care again; a "you get what you get" situation. In the age of 4k here and becoming more mainstream, even 25Mb isn't enough.
Finally, congress still has to pass it. With how heavily lobbied this notion is I expect it to go through, but who knows. We didn't expect it to get passed to begin with.
**
The tl;dr version of my link is a full year documentation and complaint log basically of AT&T not fixing a Youtube issue. My thread piggybacks off a thread started in January and closed sometime in the summer. The issue is essentially what appears to be a hop timeout between AT&T's core and Google's servers causing Youtube not to load properly without a VPN. This happens on desktop clients and it appears the path for mobile apps is fine. (My desktop will not load Youtube right without a VPN, yet my Shield loads fine as does the kid's tablets). They refuse to fix the issue on their end, net neutrality be damned /s
Do I want the awesome Title 2 revoked? Of course not, because I love competition in the tech market. Especially previously living in areas with ridiculous connections. Hell, the area I want to live in Colorado has a fiber Gigabit connection AND a wireless mesh system that offers Gigabit to companies (both being 3rd party allowed to move in due to Title 2). THe company I would have worked for there is the wireless ISP, and I'd get free Gigabit to my house. Do I believe the ISPs will do what these doomsayers are claiming? No. It wasn't that way before, they'd be even dumber to do it now with 5G on the horizon. But hey, I said in 08 ACA was a sham and was right. What do I know?
my car is an oven because there's no shade or garage at the front of the house I'm at currently. Aircon is also useless till I've been driving above 50-60km for a while, so I can't even just turn on and leave running :/ get in wearing full business setup and you're sweating instantly, ****in sucks.
What happened .. 
