Originally Posted by
Dan Druff
Before you panic about this, consider the following:
etc etc
Yet the public really believes that asking these 3 competitive eaters to pay their fair share is somehow an assault on everyone's freedom.
LOL sheeple
the thing is, none of this offsets the concern at bar that we are going to see pockets of the internet become less available or even unavailable to people unwilling to pay cable-style package deals. because thats where all this becomes very real.
this isnt conjecture, we see it in other countries, where you pay extra for a 'social media package'.
also, fun fact, it institutionalizes active monitoring of ones online conduct, which will instantly be monetized by reselling to marketers, insurance companies, and prospective employers just for starters.
so your thin band interpretation may not be invalid but it does nothing to address the absolute barrel of worms this opens with regards to intentionally degraded service, invasion/dissolution of privacy, and the additional cost of implementation which will absolutely, 100% end up being passed to consumers.
its basically a pitch perfect example of republican business ethics gone wild.