Ok, so your argument is that USA should give full authority to the telecom companies to discriminate against any part of the internet they want, in any way they want, because they could use this power to give us better deals? Because of "competition"?

Here are the problems with this blind trust in the giant telecom companies to do the right thing. Because yes, it is mainly about them. Because they have all but destroyed any prospect of meaningful competition in the USA. There is little to no competition coming from smaller telecom companies because their service either has to be leased from one of the bigger telecom companies, or can't reach the majority of the country. This is what the ISP landscape looks like in USA as of Dec 2013 (which was before the net neutrality law) for wired connections:


https://qz.com/186881/nearly-one-in-three-americans-have-no-choice-when-it-comes-to-their-internet/

The fact that 67% of the population only have access to two or less ISP options (you can take a wild guess at which ones those tend to be) even though there are currently 1,230 different ISP's that specifically provide wired connections, shatters any illusion about competition from smaller companies keeping those ISP's in check when they have such a monopoly.

This is also the main reason for why USA has some of the highest broadband costs in the world:



Other countries with net neutrality rules have no problem creating a more competitive and healthy market. Internet is not so much cheaper (and faster) in Japan because ISP's can restrict our services to just Youtube for $4.99/month... (P.S. They don't.)

However, we have examples from other countries without net neutrality and more competition among ISP's than USA where ISP's have begun shady practices with splitting up the internet into packages.
I'm sorry if I have little sympathy for the one guy who only wants access to one or two sites to save a buck (no one actually consumes the internet that way), when it means everyone else gets screwed over royally as a result. When the internet is sold in packages, full access to the entire inter, and without caps, will be considered a premium service that takes into account the prices of the separate packages. As opposed to being standard, as it is today in most countries.

But the giant telecom corporations are lobbying hundreds of millions to get this passed, to give us better deals? To invite more competition? It's not to recuperate their investments and then some? Right..
Ajit Pai was the head lawyer at the legal department at Verizon. He is not at the FCC to fight for the little guy, but for the giant telecom companies.
And we have proof of these ISP's ill intentions.  T-Mobile for example was secretly throttling (slowing down) all video traffic, not just certain partners. https://m.windowscentral.com/it-turns-out-t-mobile-really-throttling-all-video-through-bingeon-according-eff

Oh and one more thing. You previously argued that "things were fine before this law, so we don't need it". Things being fine in the past doesn't mean things won't be bad in the future. It would be unreasonable to think so. But the reason things were fine before this law is only because of vigilant resistance. Not because ISP's didn't try. Because they did, since a decade before this law was passed.

"Internet providers have attempted to throttle traffic by type or by user (Comcast in 2007), have imposed arbitrary and secret caps on data (AT&T 2011-2014), hidden fees that had no justification or documentation (Comcast in 2016), and tried to give technical advantages to their own services over those of competitors (AT&T in 2016). These attempts were only revealed in retrospect once they were discovered and lawsuits filed. If the deterrents those lawsuits provided eventually had been part of preemptive rulemaking then these practices would never have been attempted at all."

The bottom line here is that there is already a gigantic problem with competition between ISP's in USA. Net neutrality won't impact the giant monopoly problem in the country, where competition is all but extinguished.
And even if that weren't the case, but it is, we shouldn't trust the 'good' intentions of the ISP's who lobby millions to get complete control over internet traffic discrimination and a lot of control over censoring. When the prospect of gigantic revenue growth increases, eventually the bigger corporations buy out or destroy the smaller ones, and the situation can turn out to be the way it is in USA right now. Where in spite of there being 1230 different ISP's, 67% of the population only has access to 2 or less.

I pay $20 USD per month for unlimited 100 Mbit fiber broadband. (Actually right now I'm paying $0/month for six months as part of a promotion.) And I had an even better deal in Japan. That's the sort of thing USA should strive for. Because splitting up the internet into packages combined with corporate greed is a very slippery slope. Especially in a country where market monopoly is a huge problem.

Doublespeak is supposed to be deliberately ambiguous/misleading.
Which of these two terms is more ambiguous about the subject at hand? "Net Neutrality" or "Government control"?
If you want to argue against double speak, then don't do it by being worse. Because that was the only response you gave for two posts, before this one. I provided a lot more info about what net neutrality is in my opening post, than just the words "net neutrality".

It doesn't seem as good in the US though, unless this Wikipedia article about telecom companies and this Wikipedia article about broadband providers are missing something essential. It seems there's a relatively limited amount of nation-wide service providers, and I doubt local service providers can really make much of a mark in the big picture unless the situation is absolutely horrible. Of course in your case the situation sounds good, this thread seems to be more about the US.

The people who want it passed have literally spent billions on it already, they're not going to quit until it passes in some way, shape or form. They have invested too much to leave it as it is, they'll keep doubling down until it pays off big for them, they've got the cash.

Well. The main difference in the USA is that your telecom companies own the infrastructure... So they can lock out competitors almost geographically.

In Australia we have one company who owns all the infrastructure, aka. NBN Co... And all internet providers are given equal treatment for access to that  network. NBN Co is also not allowed to sell internet connections directly to consumers, thus preventing them from becoming a monopoly.

Of course with a monopoly on the infrastructure you would assume infrastructure access costs would be higher, but NBN Co still has to compete with mobile carriers. (Namely Telstra and Optus) who also retail their mobile networks to all other providers, so that keeps them in check.

Basically in the USA's attempt to create and stimulate competition in telecommunications, you have done the complete reverse which ultimately has led you to this point.

And you know that is basically the government rulling that keep thi very limite number of ISPs available right?

Ok, so your argument is that USA should give full authority to the telecom companies to discriminate against any part of the internet they want, in any way they want, because they could use this power to give us better deals? Because of "competition"?

Here are the problems with this blind trust in the giant telecom companies to do the right thing. Because yes, it is mainly about them. Because they have all but destroyed any prospect of meaningful competition in the USA. There is little to no competition coming from smaller telecom companies because their service either has to be leased from one of the bigger telecom companies, or can't reach the majority of the country. This is what the ISP landscape looks like in USA as of Dec 2013 (which was before the net neutrality law) for wired connections:


https://qz.com/186881/nearly-one-in-three-americans-have-no-choice-when-it-comes-to-their-internet/

The fact that 67% of the population only have access to two or less ISP options (you can take a wild guess at which ones those tend to be) even though there are currently 1,230 different ISP's that specifically provide wired connections, shatters any illusion about competition from smaller companies keeping those ISP's in check when they have such a monopoly.

This is also the main reason for why USA has some of the highest broadband costs in the world:



Other countries with net neutrality rules have no problem creating a more competitive and healthy market. Internet is not so much cheaper (and faster) in Japan because ISP's can restrict our services to just Youtube for $4.99/month... (P.S. They don't.)

However, we have examples from other countries without net neutrality and more competition among ISP's than USA where ISP's have begun shady practices with splitting up the internet into packages.
I'm sorry if I have little sympathy for the one guy who only wants access to one or two sites to save a buck (no one actually consumes the internet that way), when it means everyone else gets screwed over royally as a result. When the internet is sold in packages, full access to the entire inter, and without caps, will be considered a premium service that takes into account the prices of the separate packages. As opposed to being standard, as it is today in most countries.

But the giant telecom corporations are lobbying hundreds of millions to get this passed, to give us better deals? To invite more competition? It's not to recuperate their investments and then some? Right..
Ajit Pai was the head lawyer at the legal department at Verizon. He is not at the FCC to fight for the little guy, but for the giant telecom companies.
And we have proof of these ISP's ill intentions.  T-Mobile for example was secretly throttling (slowing down) all video traffic, not just certain partners. https://m.windowscentral.com/it-turns-out-t-mobile-really-throttling-all-video-through-bingeon-according-eff

Oh and one more thing. You previously argued that "things were fine before this law, so we don't need it". Things being fine in the past doesn't mean things won't be bad in the future. It would be unreasonable to think so. But the reason things were fine before this law is only because of vigilant resistance. Not because ISP's didn't try. Because they did, since a decade before this law was passed.

"Internet providers have attempted to throttle traffic by type or by user (Comcast in 2007), have imposed arbitrary and secret caps on data (AT&T 2011-2014), hidden fees that had no justification or documentation (Comcast in 2016), and tried to give technical advantages to their own services over those of competitors (AT&T in 2016). These attempts were only revealed in retrospect once they were discovered and lawsuits filed. If the deterrents those lawsuits provided eventually had been part of preemptive rulemaking then these practices would never have been attempted at all."

The bottom line here is that there is already a gigantic problem with competition between ISP's in USA. Net neutrality won't impact the giant monopoly problem in the country, where competition is all but extinguished.
And even if that weren't the case, but it is, we shouldn't trust the 'good' intentions of the ISP's who lobby millions to get complete control over internet traffic discrimination and a lot of control over censoring. When the prospect of gigantic revenue growth increases, incentive for the bigger corporations buy out or destroy the smaller ones increases as well, and the situation can turn out to be the way it is in USA right now. Where in spite of there being 1230 different ISP's, 67% of the population only has access to 2 or less.

I pay $20 USD per month for unlimited 100 Mbit fiber broadband. (Actually right now I'm paying $0/month for six months as part of a promotion.) And I had an even better deal in Japan. That's the sort of thing USA should strive for. Because splitting up the internet into packages combined with corporate greed is a very slippery slope. Especially in a country where market monopoly is a huge problem.

Doublespeak is supposed to be deliberately ambiguous/misleading.
Which of these two terms is more ambiguous about the subject at hand? "Net Neutrality" or "Government control"?
If you want to argue against double speak, then don't do it by being worse. Because that was the only response you gave for two posts, before this one. I provided a lot more info about what net neutrality is in my opening post, than just the words "net neutrality".

The lack of competition in telecom is 100% the fault of government legally prohibiting competition.  So, you just provided all kinds of evidence about what happens when government gets involved in telecom, to prove a point that government should be involved in telecom.  I don't know how to respond, as you're literally arguing against yourself.  

Government and big business are one in the same in the US, and pretty much everywhere else from what I can see.  You are arguing that the crony capitalists should govern themselves.  I'd much rather let consumers and businesses work together without a third party that is bought and paid for by that business getting involved to ensure that big business always has the upper hand.  

As for the doublespeak angle - Net Neutrality is absolutely not about neutrality.  It is about robbing consumers and small businesses of choice, and putting up a huge barrier to entry in many internet dependent industries.  If that's not doublespeak in your mind, I don't know what else to say.  

You ignore his entire post and somehow state it works against him? Did you not see the fact that the majority of ISP's control a large amount of the regions in the US?

Instead of just stating it's all because of the govenment, why don't you actually explain? Using doomsday words doesn't strengthen your opinion in any manner.