So using net neutrality to censor Matt Drudge (and other conservative) is the purpose of net neutrality? Even though by your own admission there is no proof this has even happened, just conjecture by a demagogue that it might?

Based on that I conclude that either Pai is being misquoted/misinterpreted by Rush or Pai is clueless or most likely Pai is hoping to get a lucrative job with one of the big ISPs fighting net neutrality or one of their trade groups after his time at the FCC is up and he is the embodiment of regulatory capture and crony capitalism and all of his net neutrality scenarios are smoke screens and FUD to further industry objectives.

If censorship of conservative websites is the goal of net neutrality, then it seem like it is a now or never proposition. Nearly all of the republicans will surely repeal it if they win. So, the only time to use it to silence the power of the drudgereport is now, in this election cycle, but the FCC has shown no indication of this. Why is that?

And some theories are incorrect, poorly conceived and do not have a chance of happening. When there is evidence the FCC is censoring Matt Drudge, give me proof and I will willing donate to his legal defense fund. Until that happens I, believe that Occam's Razor covers net neutrality. That it really is a law intended to reign in large U.S. ISPs. I think it is a good first step. I would like to see local loop unbundling to go with it, or for google's Project Loon or some other technological advance obliterate the advantage of controlling the last mile to people's houses.

You're using Occam's Razor wrong.  You have to claim fewer assumptions in order for it to apply, and yet there is only one assumption.  That government can and will abuse any power it has.  At a bare minimum, you are assuming that it wont, making both theories equally built upon a single assumption.

As the preponderance of evidence over the entirety of the history of mankind and the history of the US in particular are both in favor of government abusing it's power, that isn't a bet I'd want to be making.

People and the organizations they form abuse power. Yes this includes governments, but it also includes corporations, religious organizations, criminal gangs, kings and nobles, rich land owners, unions, political organizations without representation in government, militias, clans, bullies at schools, etc.

Net neutrality isn't the problem. ISPs with de facto monopoly power is the problem.

The ATF is an organization responsible for numerous murders and other felony criminal activities in pursuit of funding, and yet it remains unscathed.  The EPA routinely steals property from people over puddles caused by artificially captured seasonal rains, and common minnows in every stream on the continent, nothing has been done about this either.  How long do you think it will take to get rid of a rogue FCC when it does something half the people in Congress will be overjoyed with?

Replacing a potentially abusive, short lived corporate monopoly, with the undying government monopoly, is a foolish thing to do.  This is especially true considering we already have laws on the books covering the underhanded things that actually do take place.  The FTC and DOJ are already responsible for the problems they're supposedly solving.  Comcast not controlling half the internet connections in the country is a simple matter of forcing them to compete with, instead of purchase, local ISP's.  Government hasn't been interested in preventing the problem, it's unlikely they're actually trying to solve it.

That's true of any power structure, government or corporate...and the problem isn't the structure.

The problem is what's common to them: People. That's why the founding fathers wanted a government of law, not man.

So, it is necessary to regulate all power constructs so that people are treated equally, and that businesses are treated equally.

A corporate abuse of monopoly power already falls under various criminal and civil laws, depending on what the abuse is.  Adding new powers telling people what they can and can't do isn't going to prevent something they're not already preventing with the existing laws.  If they throttle Netflix, they're violating anti-trust laws by engaging in anti-competitive behavior in regards to their cable television service.  If they drop their local rates below their investment costs to prevent a competitor from staying in business, they're engaging in anti-competitive behavior, again a violation anti-trust laws.  If they work out a deal with another provider to split up the market, they're again violating anti-trust laws.

The supposed problems already have existing legal avenues, they're not being exercised.  They don't want to prevent it, they explicitly stated they weren't going to prevent preferential treatment deals with this regulation change.

These regulations aren't law to begin with anyway, they're an illegal delegation of authority expressly forbidden to Congress in the Constitution.  That would be your government of men, not law.  Three politically appointed assholes in agreement is all it takes to run your life.

killswitch -

You accuse me, accurately, of speculation.  Then you speculate in support of your accusation.  Mirror, killswitch.

So the enforcers are lazy? Shy? Afraid? I don't think so.

The problem revolves around lies and obfuscation...with the reclassification, they'll have to treat people/small businesses and large ones more equally...in and of itself a good thing. 

Also, prices, which would usually decrease in the face of competition between network providers, will remain high (w/o net neutrality) due to lack of competitors and the consumer will be the one to feel the brunt of this extra cost.  Thus, without net neutrality legislation, consumers lose.

Also, as to the free market argument: The free market only works if there is ample competition.  As studies show, 98 percent of American have two choices or less for broadband service, and is a situation as then House of Representatives Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Sensenbrenner calls “a virtual duopoly” that requires a “clear anti-trust remedy”. 

Since the FEC was brought up: link

Meanwhile, there are never any instances of voter fraud.

No, they're corrupt.  They behave according to their own ideals, instead of the obtuse and easily manipulated laws they were put in charge of managing.  They're like lawyers wrangling in a court room over whether evidence is allowable, instead of whether it's true or not.  The conservatives want to limit government control, and the progressives want to expand it, neither side is interested in the intent of the original laws they build their regulations around.  I expect Pai isn't any better than Wheeler for faithfully enacting and enforcing regulations, he's simply anti-control and would minimize it even where it was legally called for.

It's a fairy tale, everything being disallowed already fell under anti-trust laws, and the so called fast lanes and slow lanes will remain as they are.  They're not getting rid of peering, they explicitly stated so and it would be catastrophic if they did.  Peering is necessary and completely reasonable.  You can't just send someone massive amounts of data in return for nothing, and expect them to take it when their existing infrastructure is based around equivalent two way transmission between themselves and the backbone.  If you don't have your own CDN or peering agreement, you're not going to be on an even footing with people that do, period.

If it's all been done somewhere else, why do you care if it's repeated? 

Deregulation...yeah. That got us really far. The regulations are needed as well as the inspectors and enforcers.

Anyone ever notice how cable companies get paid twice? Or mobile suppliers as well? Then add a Federal subsidy.

What a racket they have...with slim to no competition. And not one of them has been to the clink.

If most of government wasn't already broken, what ain't broke with the net wouldn't need fixing.  Dog constantly chasing its tail.

It's such a racket that their ROI is well below most tech industries...  As long as you persist in ignoring the fact that ISP's spend ten billion a year on infrastructure improvement, this argument is simply going to be a nice sounding farce.

Comcast's ROI is under 5% with a decent looking margin that seems to be stabilizing in the 10% range, TWC is actually investing more money than they make in profit just to keep up.  5% is considered a poor investment, 10% a typical investment.  Companies doing well are making much more than 10.

An ISP is a dog of a business to be in, high maintenance, sky high investment costs, and a future outlook as clear as dirt.  The idea that Comcast is making a killing is pure bullshit.  Are they making a killing in specific localities?  Definitely.  They're reaming some people like there's no tomorrow, but it's only some.  Their margins are average, their returns below average.  ISP's blow billions on infrastructure that lasts for better than a decade, only to have to replace it five years later when it's antiquated garbage.

If you want to harp on some evil corporation for hosing their customers, try Apple.  They make billions off boobs and suckers that pay far higher premiums for their brand than Comcast could ever dream of charging.

Are you sure about that?

Michael Angelakis (Vice Chairman, CFO):

"Please refer to slide six. First-quarter Cable Communications operating cash flow increased 6.2% to $4.7 billion reflecting a consistent margin of 40.9% compared to last year. This is terrific financial performance as we effectively managed higher programming costs, in increasing advertising, marketing and promotional expenses and additional expenses to support the accelerated deployment of X1 and Cloud DVR to our customers."

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13137080/1/comcast-cmcsa-earnings-report-q1-2015-conference-call-transcript.html

I agree that Apple does hose their customers, but I blame the customers. Apple is directly competing with some of the best tech companies out there and is still making a fortune.