I'm not really on either side of this, because I don't support secret votes over secret proposals by unelected cabals of people behind closed doors. That, in and of itself, is pure bullshit.
However, the reason for net neutrality is to prevent Comcast or others from downthrottling using QoS (quality of service) metrics; or in essence, creating internet "fast lanes."
@The Oi , asks "who owns the cables?" Depends. Typically one company either lays the cable, purchases in bulk, or leases from the local government. The local governments typically sell out the rights for their area in exchange for infrastructure improvements and grouped (lower) rates. But this is usually only effective for RF cable, not fiber, or telephone lines (DSL).
So, in essence, something has to happen. Whether or not that means creating a new public Internet utility is another question in itself. We seem have been placed here by the courts. Previous case law seems to suggest that if the internet is not a public utility, then companies like Comcast can filter traffic as they see fit, because they own the medium and internet lines are thus not like telephone lines.
From an ideological standpoint, I can't understand the argument that we would be better off without government assistance. Japan has the best internet on Earth, and that is largely due to the Japanese government paying for massive internet infrastructure programs.
I really don't want to argue libertarianism in yet another thread, I just don't it's worth the time or effort to do so whenever anything comes up.
From a technical standpoint, well, it's purely a privacy issue. Meaning, if Comcast can't see what you are doing, then you'll invariably end up in the shit slow traffic tier.
What does this mean for users like me, that generally use VPNs or encryption for lots of use? That VPN traffic will be slow.
What does this mean for most users? That almost every thing they do will be monitored, recorded, analyzed, and sold, by their internet service provider.
Not only is this about not allowing companies like Comcast to dictate which websites are served at which speeds; but this is predominantly about keeping the internet as an
open medium.
I'd prefer the internet be left in the state it is today; however, the corporations that largely provide the internet services here in the United States are dead set on pursuing their agenda.
I don't see any alternative but Net Neutrality, unfortunately.
