[Cknight70]

I live in a red state and e-mailed all of my representatives about net neutrality and I got a response back from all but one of them. From their responses, and my own research I've concluded there is another side to this story than just Republicans treating this like a partisan issue or votes being bought out from Comcast so large cable companies can make more money.

All my representatives expressed support for repealing title 2, saying things like it hurts competition, creates a higher barrier of entry for competing companies, and the majority said they were going to be working to ensure laws are made to have true net neutrality.[0] From the responses from my representatives, and from the research I have verified from them since then, I can say title two was likely not the solution we were looking for, I would urge you to look for viewpoints against title two as well, and remember to stay skeptical to avoid fake news from all sides of the political spectrum.

[0]Excerpt from one of my congressman, I'd type up one of my senator's responses but he sent me physical mail as a reply which I don't have on me: "Like you, I believe [people in our state] should have access to a free and open internet. Following the FCC's vote, I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to enact legislation that will preserve net neutrality principles while ensuring that the Internet is kept free from government regulations so it can continue to thrive and improve our connectivity and economy."

[JoeAltmaier]

And you believe them? The big money interests promised not to violate net neutrality, if only we would remove all the rules first? And we're supposed to believe that?

[Cknight70]

Not sure if the internet freedom bill was written maliciously, or with a "one problem at a time" approach. I would have loved for there to be a proposal to replace title 2 with something better, but maybe Ajit Pai knew straight up removing it would be more popular with the Republicans interests.

I believe the "violations" people cite are very blown up, example being Comcast blocking bit torrent, they worked with bit torrent and made their service much more efficient, win win for everyone.

That being said I do not trust big cable companies, and that's why I don't share the "The free market will take care of itself" approach some republicans seem to have, which ignores there is no competition in some areas to begin with. I'm pro net neutrality, and am hoping some future law can ensure this without being inherently suffocating for ISPs.

[JoeAltmaier]

Just look at countries without protections: your phone provider extorts monthly fees to 'provide' access to facebook etc. In fact they're doing nothing. Except blocking access until you pay. Simple shakedown. This is what we have to look forward to.

[Cknight70]

I'm not looking forward to that future either, which is why I'm still being politically active about net neutrality, just not title two.

The good thing is that the new law doesn't have to be permanent, there have already been a net neutrality specific law in Montana, I don't know if it is any good and I haven't done any research on it, but I'd be willing to bet its more relevant than title 2 was.

I've also seen a lot more articles talking about lack of competition in areas ISP problems and such since title 2 was repealed. So there is still hope!