> If they're uninformed, as soon as I explain that Comcast will essentially be able to do the same thing as cell data providers, charge for overages, and mentio

> If they're uninformed, as soon as I explain that Comcast will essentially be able to do the same thing as cell data providers, charge for overages, and mention how this might affect Netflix. They are quickly for Net Neutrality. Except its all a lot more complicated than that. Because its impossible to pass actual legislation anymore, ISPs were apparently re-classified under Title II of the telecommunications act. An archaic, byzantine, 1930s era law, the text of which can be found here: https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf. I have no idea what most of the stuff in that document means, and I have no idea what the ramifications of any changes to it would be. I don't want a company like Comcast blocking my ability to visit certain sites or use certain apps. But I'm also concerned about the Government attempting to stifle free expression. Historically we've had all kinds of rules governing the radio and television (what you can and can't say on TV, the fairness doctrine, etc) so I don't think those concerns are entirely unfounded... But those are just ideas and I'm not sure the debate we're having on these questions has anything to do with the decisions actually being made. The laws in this country are designed to be unintelligible because (1) it allows politicians to make absurd, empty promises, because its impossible to know what was actually passed and (2) it gives bureaucrats total discretion in how laws are enforced so that (3) they can leverage laws for political favors and to punish their enemies. And that's what I'm against: a bazillion banana republic laws which no one can possibly follow.