Given your demonstrated intellectual dishonesty, this will be my last response to you.
You just whined about HuffPo, as if the publisher had anything to do with what the inventors of the technologies in question had to say.
Obviously, the publisher has everything to do with which points they cherry-pick from whoever they use as an “authority”. I note you failed mention the fact that I did follow their link back to the underlying document and discussed its own lack of honesty.
And why do you think that “the inventors of the technologies in question” still completely understand what it’s evolved into. Anyway, as I mentioned above, “while I didn’t find any actual technical untruths, much of the interpretation, opinion, and propaganda is highly defective, and doesn’t follow from the “facts” they present.”
Thus they either don’t understand the Internet themselves, or are using whatever understanding they have dishonestly. Or both. IOW their document is propaganda, not technical.
Do you have a cable modem? Then you have a rate limited connection on a shared trunk, with nearly every vendor offering tiered pricing.
This has nothing to do with the “ point to point links” under discussion, and bringing it up in this context shows that whatever understanding you demonstrate of the Internet makes you unfit to judge anybody else’s.
You have demonstrated a hugely incorrect understanding of the technology, […]
An assertion that doesn’t follow from your statements, and comes from a demonstrated unfit source. A clear ad hominem that shows your intellectual dishonesty.
The difference with neutrality repealed is monopoly/oligopoly ISPs can rate limit specific things you do as a subset of the bandwidth you’ve pay for in order to shut out competitors. This is clearly a market consolidation play at the expense of consumers by any reasonable analysis.
If this issue actually arises, it can be dealt with without imposing the strait jacket of Title II “net neutrality”. At the moment it’s a boogeymen used to justify the the Obama-imposed prohibition of blanket inflexibility via Title II.
Examples such as yours are clear “restraint of trade”, properly dealt with by the FTC. If they arise. If additional specific regulatory authority is needed, as I mentioned above:
The correct solution (IMO, of course) would have been to add a new category to the underlying legislation defining Internet Last Mile providers and specifying what authority the FCC does and does not have and what principles and philosophies they should use in regulating it.
To reiterate, I’m not going to waste any more time on your clearly dishonest rhetoric. Anybody can throw together a bunch of assertions “backed” with irrelevant “facts” and links to dishonest propaganda. All it does is waste the time of informed people.