I look forward to a thousand gallons of extra waiting time at airports, since without selective (or if you prefer, discretionary) enforcement, every airline passenger must be put through a full security check.
Yep, I think you have it there manson1972.
I will have to notice that there is here from the defenders of the repeal of the rules a complete avoidance of what history tell us it shaped the course of why the rules and regulation to protect net neutrality came from in the first place. It should not had been surprising that the old empire of AT&T is still showing up with the new order AT&T. 
History then tell us that right now the ones in favor of the current decision are in effect standing in favor of companies that are against competition and more in favor of the monopolistic practices of those companies.
I just went outside, and there were many jaywalkers crossing the street, and police were just standing around not ticketing them. And I saw a lemonade stand without the required business license posted on the side, not sure why the child wasn’t being accosted by police and her money taken for evidence.
That’s local law enforcement. Your silly liberal brain hasn’t grokked that Bricker was referring to FEDERAL law enforcement.
Right, Bricker? You’re narrowly tailoring your argument and all?
Damn, you got me!
Oh wait! I see people smoking pot right outside a federal law enforcement agency every day. But the agents don’t come pouring out of the building to arrest them!
Ha!
Dude! Not a metaphor, its, like, an analogy…
It happened in 2003, when Tim Wu coined the phrase, “network neutrality.”
Yeah, but Willie Nelson is outside of everyone’s jurisdiction.
Ain’t nobody gonna take “Baby Face” Nelson alive!
::disappears in a puff of logic::
Wait, wait!
::reappears::
Maybe that’s the fallacy of the excluded middle. Maybe I favored a third option, where the FCC seeks Congressional authorization for a category of regulation that actually fits ISPs, and then engages in rulemaking under that aegis?
Ah, the one that comes with a pony.
Do you really believe that your excluded middle had any chance of passing in 2015? Do you really think it has any chance of passing now?
On the plus side, this could be another motivating factor to get dems out to the polls in 2018, which may make the congressional approach more feasible.
How about simply an unwise choice?
I’ve been a poster here for 18 years. Which posts of mine have lauded granting a favored corporation an exemption from, say, certain labor or environmental regulations?
You’ve got more than 55,000 posts of mine to work with.
The only time I can think of that I have argued for any exemptions of any kind was when application of the rules would violate some constitutional right, and that’s not fairly described as “selective,” enforcement, where the discretion rests with the government.
I’m drawing a distinction between your views and the views of most conservatives. My point of which is that your position on this nonsensical matter - that the term network neutrality means not simply the policy that all traffic must be treated equally, but primarily the process by which that policy was established - is that you must be very lonely tilting at this particular windmill.
By the way, if you asked me what I thought of Trump’s tax cuts, and I said I opposed them, would you assume that I oppose the Senate passing legislation by a filibuster-proof process?
A wrong approach does not become right merely because the right approach is difficult. You cannot (in my opinion, anyway) justify doing the wrong thing because it was the only path to getting your way.
At some point I believe we have to recognize that the process was inextricably linked with the outcome, and I imagine you believe that too, with respect to, say, Merrick Garland.
The liberal hypocrisy card! Shit, he wins again! When will we learn…
Maybe a 4th option. The one where the FCC already had Congressional authorization for a category of regulation that actually fits ISPs and they used that authorization?
Or maybe that was the 1st option?
What about the 5th option? The one where you start an OP based on a definition of NN that you alone hold?
…how is this a “consequence” for the people of America?
Did what the FCC do go beyond its statutory authority or violate the constitution? Barring philosophical differences, what is explicitly fundamentally wrong with the process?
The media hasn’t misframed the issue. Well you haven’t made the case that they have. Can you give some examples of the media misframing the issue?
Net neutrality hasn’t changed at all. It has always been a philosophical principle. Net neutrality “is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.” Regulations that were imposed under Title II are not net neutrality. They allowed net neutrality. As I’m not in the US your definition cannot and does not apply.
I’m going to wait to respond to the substance of this post until I can consult the liberal hive mind. Maybe they have some clue what the hell you’re talking about.
Wasn’t the most recent rule change executed by the same method the 2015 rule change was? I would think if the focus is the method you’d be opposed to any utilization of it.