Originally Posted by cyrnel

Whoa. UStwo, I encourage you to research this a bit further. Start by ignoring party lines. This is a very atypical regulation/deregulation issue. Check previous attempts to affect net neutrality that came about through peering disputes, especially during the hungry late 90's. It's never been allowed to happen for many reasons.

Essentially, it allows carriers to bend the ecosystem. As if hyenas were able to ground otherwise unreachable competitor scavengers by decreasing air density. Okay, that's a bit hopeless.

A close analogy would be our roadways. Say we contracted out management and maintenance of roadways to private companies for a few years. The big guys win through efficiency. They maintain them, sell driveway upkeep and access roads to people, and slowly the small contractors go away. Now come rule changes. Up pop toll booths that stop or delay motorists and freight trucks that aren't high bidders. If you can't pony up or are a competitor then your freight isn't making it to walmart until after the carrier's freight partners, or ever.

That's one big scenario net neutrality is meant to prevent. It's been with us since the beginning and has only been bumped against when companies pulled "we're bigger than you so we don't have to move your traffic and we'll bleed you of your customers" tricks. Turf wars of a sort. Until now those were universally met with technical and bipartisan hammer-strokes. This is an effort by the monster carriers to get a green light to set up the toll-booths. The difference now is a few years of financial lubrication in DC.

Edit: I do wish I'd changed the post title. The original article stated this was a republican thing. The reality is that a couple dems also voted for it. Mr. M is a pretty good reporter but he does let bias peek through now and then.