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I've also seen a lot more articles talking about lack of competition in areas ISP problems and such since title 2 was repealed.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