(12-19-2017 07:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 12:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 11:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In 2015 the Internet wasn't broken. So we fixed it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

In 2015 the previous rule was ruled unconstitutional. So we put it back in place in a constitutional manner.
FTFY.

It wasn't broken when the prior rule was put in place, either.
It's a philosophical question. Are we better off with a regulated utility model, or with a model based on competition and innovation? The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. I prefer the latter.

I say competition and innovation. Net neutrality rules helped to ensure that small companies using the Internet were protected from potentially predtorial practices by larger companies who wanted to keep them from entering the marketplace and could have worked with ISPs to unfairly burden them.
There is a history of ISPs doing this - I’d much prefer an ISP not be able to affect what services I can use on the internet as opposed to them having the ability to try and do that.
It’s not as if the ISPs couldn’t continue to compete for my business by offering me faster internet to ALL websites.

They will compete in those ways in a competition model. In a "net neutrality" model, they'll get to be "good enough" and that will be it. That's what happens with regulated utilities.

You’ll have to explain that a bit more in detail - I’m failing to see how allowing ISPs to decide what data is preferred actually increases competition between ISPs to offer a better product than what they have now, and how this would actually increase competition.