>>Lots of companies offer faster services, fast lanes does not equate to throttled or blocked traffic.
>Er what? That's like saying there's plenty of Google fiber in the country. Just not in my neighborhood or many other neighborhoods, but man, is Google Fiber fast.
No its not, I said companies offer faster services, its called priority services and its not just internet related. Saying ISP's can only offer faster services for medical, is the only one needing faster priority is a weak argument. Traders want faster service and built out their own networks.
>>With LTE 5 and ViaSat 2 that just went up, and Viasat 3 going up in 2019, Facebook & Google offering internet access, within 5 years, Intenet access will be even more accessible and global.
>Again what? Mobile isn't a replacement for broadband. Fiber that isn't in my neighborhood isn't a suitable replacement. Like many Americans, all we have limited broadband options. It isn't also about money. For example, broadband availability for 90210 [broadbandnow.com] shows 1 viable cable and 1 DSL provider (Time Warner Spectrum and AT&T) for most of the zip code. There are 4 broadband providers but 2 of them only service 3% of the area. There are 2 satellite services. There is no fiber option. I would say that 90210 is a pretty affluent zip code. And yet they can't get more than 2 choices.
Well actually it is. There are many communities that dont have high speed broadband, not everyone lives in the the cities, many live in rural america. Wanting things to be real vs what is real, I'm talking about is current and real. ViaSat 3 and LTE5 is a contender with terabyte speeds. Try doing some damn research on where the tech is going.
>>FCC is working on guidelines to communities to allow new community ISPs and new companies to run services to the pole.
>Are we talking about the same national ISPs that sued local municipal ISPs from providing service to towns that they themselves didn't service?
You jumped from FCC to ISPS, did you not even read the FCC's recommendation on "to the pole" and community ISP ideas?
>>The FCC deregulating ISP's so smaller ISP's dont have the same regulations as big carriers and can now evenly compete again.
>Again the history of ISPs shows that the big carriers will not tolerate smaller ones. This has the opposite effect of what you are saying.
Again, no, the history of ISPs show you are wrong. The history is many cities gave them monopoly because they had no IDEA what the Internet was. Some cities went the other way and put in dark fiber and even allowed community ISPs. There is no universal access. States are widely different.
>>All I see is so much hyperbole and chicken little "sky is falling" without any facts to back them up. Its all "What if" scenarios, for a bill that's only been in place for 2 years and didn't fix the monopoly issue.
>So your argument against net neutrality is that it was put into place for 2 whole years and it didn't break up monopolies that have been in place for decades besides the fact net neutrality was never meant to break up the monopolies. Ever. The regulations were in place to keep the monopolies from gaining an unfair advantage, not to break them up
My argument is what exactly I said it was. Deregulation and competition is a good thing, more choice is good. And your hyperbole of "the internet is gonna die!" is bullshit.