I'm reading the bill right now, I don't know why there's such a fuss. The people who drafted this document are aware of these issues, and have taken active meas

I'm reading the bill right now, I don't know why there's such a fuss. The people who drafted this document are aware of these issues, and have taken active measures to make sure they aren't taken advantage of. For example, this site says: > The current definition of "specialized service" (Article 2.15) increases costs and risk to internet users, and must be changed or deleted. However, if you look at the actual definition in the bill [1], this has already been taken care of: > (15) "specialised service" means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service; (Emphasis is my own.) Similar arguments can be used for the rest of the sites' points. To be clear, I'm all for net neutrality, in fact, as a student I've personally benefited from this enormously. But it's unfair to say this bill is "threatening internet freedom". Rather, it seems like a big step forwards for consumers and telecom companies alike. [1] - http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=2734 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/docu...