I'm in agreement as well. Does anyone seriously know what this supposed "net neutrality" is (in the real world, not in the "free love" and "free internet" world?
There is nothing "neutral" about the fracking incompetent, corrupt, over reaching, power hungry, soul eating, mindless government bureaucrats taking over the flippin' internet!
Read the bill before you sign it.
Sigh. There is no "net neutrality" legislation. The gist of the reality is that Comcast wants to break the law and receive immunity through misrepresentation. This is actually only mildly related to net neutrality.
Alright, let me try to make this real simple. If you are paid to carry a kilo of cocaine, even though you are not the owner nor the intended recipient, you're still going to jail for possession and distribution. Unless you are a common carrier. Being a common carrier means you transport goods or information without knowing what it is, and thus enjoy immunity from the contents. FedEx will not be busted by the feds for unknowingly shipping a kilo of cocaine. Verizon will not be busted for transporting illegal porn, pirated software, pre-release copies of movies, etc.
They are solely immune because they are common carriers, and no other reason. Because it is unreasonable and undesirable for them to inspect every package.
In short, Comcast wants to inspect your traffic (deep packet inspection), alter your information (via forgery) and control your access. That is perfectly fine, if a court says it's legal (which they probably would). However, they would no longer conform to the definition of a common carrier. Which is completely fine and legal. You do not NEED to be a common carrier. It is a legal status under the law with some specific protections, nothing more. If Comcast want to wiretap, forge, extort, blackmail, etc (which they have stated as their intention, stripped to bare definitions and removing the PR speak), it is all perfectly legal so long as the customer consents.
However, under no sane definition of the law are they still a common carrier. I don't care whether you agree or disagree with their actions. They are a corporation and solely obligated to following the law and answering to their shareholders. There is no law stating that they MUST be common carriers, and no one other than their shareholders can force them to be one.
That said, if they are not a common carrier, they are obviously not entitled to common carrier status and thus their civil and criminal immunity would need to be stripped.
Problem is, Comcast wants to keep their common carrier status without being a common carrier. FCC is stupidly trying to make this a net neutrality issue, when it should not be. Simply enforce the appropriate definition.
If Comcast wants to act as a noncommon carrier, that's fine. The flip side is they become liable for everything that crosses their network. As they apparently wish to be. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either you are a common carrier, or you are not. It's binary. Comcast needs to pick one and move on. Instead, they will waste our tax dollars trying to retain civil/criminal immunity when they no longer are eligible to it due to their own choice.