Your position is not logically consistent in number of aspects.

You claim that Net Neutrality will shortly fall on its own (it hasn't since 1980s, or even 1860s if I chose to be coy with telegraph regulations) , you also claim that it is something completely new (and ignore status quo of 20+ years and end-to-end principle), yet you support corporate interests that through the court system (violence of armed men, dur dur) attempt to change this. So does it have to be changed or will it fail on its own?

You present this argument as "giving govt authority to regulate content" when this exactly opposite - it establishing rights of internet users and prevents carriers from engaging in "regulation" of content.

You claim it to be unprecedented, when many comparable "no discrimination of X based on Y" laws and regulations exist, Constitution being one of them.

You chose to ignore evidence that doesn't suit you, just in the post above yours I said:

Quote:
This whole fight started when in 2005 AT&T CEO started complaining that Google, that already pays for bandwidth, should be also paying for access to AT&T subscribers, who already pay for bandwidth. This further escalated in 2007 when Comcast (also cable TV operator) got slammed by FCC with fines for throttling traffic to competition.


to get

Quote:
you have never even put forth any evidence that the doom and gloom scenario you are so worried about is imminent


and call it non-existing problem.

About the only part I agree with you - exclusion of wireless was a mistake.

[Linked Image]