If you don't think limiting how ISPs can operate in terms of rates and carrying traffic is covered by "blanket bans on modes of operation", I don't know what to tell you.
Verizon literally referred to it as
> "arbitrary and capricious" intrusion which violates the company's right to free speech, stripping it of control over what its networks transmit and how.
Which is dramatic, but I'd say not much more melodramatic than the "Cable Package For Websites" rhetoric that was getting pushed.
-
But you're also clearly dealing with some personal issues that make you need people who don't agree with you to actually just be dumber than you? Wouldn't want to ruin the only thing you're clutching onto at this point...
(I should mention though, I'm from a country without net neutrality. It mostly looks like cheaper access to specific services for end users. You could argue that's a tad anti-competitive but that's a) not much different than bundling that already happens in the US b) not exactly the kind of fire and brimstone being promised...)
Verizon literally referred to it as
> "arbitrary and capricious" intrusion which violates the company's right to free speech, stripping it of control over what its networks transmit and how.
Which is dramatic, but I'd say not much more melodramatic than the "Cable Package For Websites" rhetoric that was getting pushed.
-
But you're also clearly dealing with some personal issues that make you need people who don't agree with you to actually just be dumber than you? Wouldn't want to ruin the only thing you're clutching onto at this point...
(I should mention though, I'm from a country without net neutrality. It mostly looks like cheaper access to specific services for end users. You could argue that's a tad anti-competitive but that's a) not much different than bundling that already happens in the US b) not exactly the kind of fire and brimstone being promised...)