[ExTxMarine]

What nn prevents is UPS charging me more to ship a bowling ball I bought from Dick's Sporting Goods than they charge me if I bought the same bowling ball from UPS.

What nn does is gives the US Government MORE, SPECIFIC control over the owners of the physical medium of the internet and it gives the Government another opportunity to shake down another business that they know people already don't like (cable and phone companies are two of the most HATED, but necessary businesses in America).

With nn left in place (and forgotten about (like too many other laws, rules and regulations)), it gives the Government an unguarded doorway into DEEPER control of the internet!

My concern isn't with the voiced/written "intent" of nn...it's the NEXT SHOE that I'm worried about! Yes, as written, it says "We the Government won't do those things that you are worried about us doing and those things we can LEGALLY do now that we have moved ISPs into this new category." As usual, it's just another ol' "You can trust me; I'm from the Government" statement that usually accompanies these rules and regulations. But as long as the words Government, Control and Democrat is involved - its a very BAD IDEA - PERIOD!!

[semimojo]

My concern isn't with the voiced/written "intent" of nn...it's the NEXT SHOE that I'm worried about!

Exactly the sentiment of the pro-nn side as well.

They're worried about what the ISPs can now do without the nn rules constraining them.

I think both sides like the way the internet has been handled and want it to continue as is (except for the ISPs who want to tap new revenue strteams), but both are worried about tomorrow.

That's one of the complicated things about this argument - it's all about hypotheticals.

If so much of broadband wasn't effectively a monopoly it would be a no-brainer - let the market decide.