Did the police arrest you before you jaywalked, because you had the potential for Jaywalking?
Oh right.
And they’ll kick you in the balls when installing your service!
Huh? Are you asserting that ISPs have been penalized before they even violated the net neutrality rules that had been in place?
I wonder if there could be a constitutional convention over net neutrality… 
I am surprised that none of the anti-neutrality posters has brought up piracy and other illegal content.
It seems as though with the new rules, ISP’s would have an easier time in preventing illegal content from being served.
I see this as the only possible benefit of the new rules, so I am curious as to why they aren’t running with that.
Because the anti-neutrality posters don’t actually know what net neutrality is and how it affects users. If they did know, they wouldn’t be anti-neutrality
Actually, this is a good example. Placing a fee on something that used to be “free” sounds bad, but more closely the price of something tracks the cost of providing is a net positive. Having baggage fees provides an incentive for people to pack lighter. That saves the airline fuel on a flight and/or gives them more space to move cargo. The net result is that the use of airplanes, pilots, fuel, etc. is more efficient.
The issue is that your solution prevents useful services from being offered. Let’s say that I’m shipping baby spinach and you’re shipping rice. My spinach has to be on the shelves in a week or it goes bad. Your rice can sit on a train for weeks without issue. The ideal answer is that I pay the shipping company extra so my shipment is shipped faster than yours.
How does this delightful analogy capture the fact that I could still browse Vonage’s web site, send and receive e-mail from Vonage, and even ssh into their Linux box?
Let’s say my ISP now offers me connectivity to every site, application, service, etc., on the Internet right now for one set price at whatever speed I choose to pay for.
What services could they offer me that would improve upon that?
Hey, I have a great idea. The government(s) should just sell all the highways, roads and streets to private interests and let the invisible hand level it all out. You can go where ever you want, as long as you can afford the tolls. And no regulation at all, just let the various companies “compete” for your business.
No, we should actually repeal all regulations on everything, and only after people start abusing things that were previously regulated should we reinstate those regulations.
For instance, food labeling regulations. When was the last time food wasn’t labeled? Clearly this regulation is not needed anymore. After it’s repeal, if manufacturers start not labeling food, we can always pass the regulation again.
Less regulation, better choices for the consumer - it’s win-win!
You know that analogy doesn’t make any sense. We’re not talking about enforcement, we’re talking about whether there should be a regulation again jaywalking at all.
We know that ISPs want to violate neutrality. How do we know this? They just spent a lot of money and political capital getting it done. Additionally, we know they try to infringe on neutrality before they’re smacked down by the FCC and the courts. We know they want to block other company’s services in favor of their own. We know that they want to make the internet something less than it is - consumers now have all the choice in the world, and the ISPs/content providers want to restrict that.
During the neutrality “debate”, Comcast added this statement to their official policy webpage. When the FCC voted down neutrality, they quietly and instantly removed that statement from their page. They also removed the statement about how they won’t use paid fast lanes at the same time.
I’m sure that’s the actions of an actor that has no intention of throttling content.
Can you guys at least admit that this will almost certainly be worse for the consumer? That the experience they’ll have next year will be worse than the one they had yesterday?
“A fallacious argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the ‘straw man’) has an absurd, unpleasant, or ridiculous consequence, relying on the audience failing to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.”
- Wikipedia
It doesn’t. But since none of that is remotely relevant to the original complaint, I’m not sure why that’s a problem.
Reductio ad absurdum delenda est!
It seems likely that as soon as the big studios can reach a payment agreement with the ISPs, BitTorrent speeds will be throttled down to almost zero.
Better download movies while you can! 
Thanks for that quoted definition.
Your stated reason for thinking the repeal of NN is “potentially a good thing” is only “less regulation is better”
You’ve offered no other reasoning beside “less regulation is better” despite numerous attempts by me and others to get your opinion on why NN is “potentially a good thing”
Further, you and others in this thread consistently ignore what was going on in the Internet access world that directly led up to the start of NN. You rather obtusely keep implying that NN wasn’t created because something needed regulating, but simply for no reason at all.
If one were to take your stated “less regulation is better” to further reaches than just Internet access, one might come up with a similar reasoning for repealing food labeling regulations. The reason you think this is a straw-man is that you fail to see the reasons that NN was implemented in the first place.
It’s porn, isn’t it? All over the country, at any given moment, thousands of people are rubbing one out watching Teenage Vampire Lesbian Sluts from Outer Space, and they aren’t making *any *money off that!
They don’t have to invest anything, don’t have to build infrastructure, don’t have to do anything but reach out and grab it! So to speak.