I agree about the zero rating thing being ok to most people, but my guess is the FCC was trying to walk a line clearly and didn't want to create any grey areas.

I agree about the zero rating thing being ok to most people, but my guess is the FCC was trying to walk a line clearly and didn't want to create any grey areas. Net neutrality means net neutrality means net neutrality and so forth. The problem is really that once you allow any sort of packet discrimination, for lack of a better way of putting it, you open up questions about what's "slow", as it's all relative anyway. Better to just not go there. I'm a strong supporter of net neutrality, but don't see that as being the only way. I just am deeply skeptical that the FCC and government would enforce the sort of antitrust regulation and encouragement of competition that's needed to achieve the same aims another way. If the FCC and federal legislators were encouraging antitrust suits, and banning bans on municipal broadband, etc. I would feel totally differently. But to me it seems like it's obvious they're there to protect entrenched corporate interests at the expense of small business and consumers. I sincerely appreciate Pai's comments about regulation inhibiting expansion of new ISPs and broadband delivery, but it seems like a con to me without concrete examples, and without doing other things that are consistent with that. If he gave a damn about expanding broadband access he would be fighting tooth and nail to support municipalities that have wanted to do it but haven't been able to. Maybe he has and I'm not aware of it, but his rhetoric seems empty and one-sided.