My apologies if I missed that part. I don't want to misrepresent you.
You said it would probably be overturned, and I said "I should ****ing hope so."
Do you often project those that disagree with you and displaying a lack of reality?
Many conservatives, due to the things they're being told by Beck/Limbaugh, think that Net Neutrality is a bad thing. That it is some sort of internet version of radio equality deal. It's not. They think Net Neutrality is somehow designed to push liberal views over conservative views. That's not how it works. That view is the polar opposite of reality. It's not my projection or my opinion, it's reality. Up is down. Black is white.
That seems rather absolute, you'll forgive me if I remain skeptical?
You can remain skeptical if you like, but Net Neutrality is really simple. Net Neutrality means that data is data. Essentially, the ISPs are required to be blind. 10GB from NetFlix is the same as 10GB from FoxNews.com or 10GB from scatporntorrents.com.
The aspects of this are up for debate, and where they should be debated is in the congress. My idea of "Big Government" is when a regulatory body like the FCC doesn't like that the congress is not acting, and has been rebuffed by the courts, goes through with a ruling anyway. That may not be "Big Government" but it is authoritarian.
The FCC's ruling does not actually create Net Neutrality. (the opposite, really) Maybe that's where you're drawing the confusion. Net Neutrality is anti-authoritarian, as it would ensure that no entity, private or public, could treat data from msnbc.com any differently than it treats data from foxnews.com. No entity could charge you more for data from foxnews.com than from msnbc.com. The FCC's ruling really does exactly the opposite. Your ISP can now charge you an extra fee to get data from foxnews.com and not charge you that fee for msnbc.com, with the express intent of funneling subcribers towards msnbc.com instead of foxnews.com. Net Neutrality would have prevented this.
There is a de-facto monopoly on that last-mile piece of cable that delivers internet data to your home. That cable was largely paid for with your money. Taxpayers funded this infrastructure. We paid tax dollars to fund all these highways we have around, imagine if those same construction companies could arbitrarily plant a toll booth
on your driveway. You paid for them to build that residential street, and now they have the ability to selectively charge an extra fee to anyone going in and out of your driveway. They like Toyota, so Toyota vehicles get a pass. You like GM cars? Parking fee $10.99/month. It's your goddamned driveway, they're your goddamned roads, but the FCC has given this power to ISPs, who, by the way, have a government-sanctioned
monopoly in most markets.
The worst part is, it's not you, the subscriber, who is really going to shoulder the burden. It's the little guy with his little website who can't afford to pay off a multibillion dollar ISP that is really going to suffer. The internet small business man is going to be stuck with 56k speeds for his website. Bestbuy.com can pay off the ISPs for access to the fast lane. Can Joe's Web Shop?