[MyDogHasFleas]

There's no difference between "allow" and "not disallow"? There's a huge difference.

"Allow" means to affirmatively allow ISPs to charge fees when they couldn't before, while "not disallow" means to not put new regulations in place stopping ISPs from charging fees.

"You can hardly fault them for their language choice" -- to me it's much more than a language choice, it's saying something correctly or incorrectly, realistically or framed in some other reality.

And if saying it correctly "implies avoiding unwanted government interference", does that justify saying it incorrectly? Do the ends justify the means? Is propaganda OK if it's for a cause we believe in?

An analogous discussion for "slow down/make inaccessible" vs. "not speed up". There's no difference between these things? I think there's a huge difference. If I'm a company that doesn't pay the fee, will I get the same service I did before, or will I be slowed down/cut off?

As I read the proposed FCC regs, it's pay-for-speedup rather than don't-pay-and-get-slowed-down. But this "Internet slowdown day" campaign is explicitly saying that sites will get slowed down. How do I reconcile these two things?

[AnthonyMouse]

> "Allow" means to affirmatively allow ISPs to charge fees when they couldn't before, while "not disallow" means to not put new regulations in place stopping ISPs from charging fees.

How is that a difference? The result of both is identical: The ISPs won't be permitted to charge fees.

Look at it in a different context. Because of a technicality in the wording of a statute, all existing traffic laws are found unconstitutional. The legislature introduces a bill that reinstates most of the traffic laws in a way which is constitutional but the bill doesn't reinstate the prohibition against driving while intoxicated. Are you really claiming that someone who points out that the bill "allows driving drunk" is incorrect? At best you're being incredibly pedantic.

> An analogous discussion for "slow down/make inaccessible" vs. "not speed up". There's no difference between these things? I think there's a huge difference. If I'm a company that doesn't pay the fee, will I get the same service I did before, or will I be slowed down/cut off?

In the presence of sufficient capacity no packets are dropped and there is no fast lane or slow lane. The only way to have a fast lane is to have insufficient capacity and then allocate the existing capacity in preference to the fast lane at the expense of the slow lane. The result is to slow down the people who don't pay the fee.

[MyDogHasFleas]

I would say the pedantry is on the other foot. :)

Your drunk driving analogy is strained to say the least. Net neutrality has not been in effect though all of ISP history, except for a brief period before the courts shot it down. To compare that to a hypothetical drunk driving law scenario is way off the mark. It's much closer to reality, as opposed to pedantry, to say that the new regulations don't disallow the ISPs from charging fees, because for almost all of history, there was no regulation about this.

Regarding fast/slow lane, you are making two logic errors. One, implicitly assuming it's a zero-sum game, when it's not. The FCC's intent is to incent ISPs to increase capacity so they can allocate that capacity for new (paid) services. Not to slow down existing clients. Two, assuming we are just talking about bandwidth. Quality of service in all its aspects could be on the table for paid services. Bandwidth alone is not sufficient for good streaming.