Net Neutrality might end.

[Cravdraa]

I mean, you're right but from what I've seen this is about as close to a bi-partisan issue as it comes in this country these day. The average republican doesn't seem to want this any more than the average democrat; the only ones who really stand to benefit are the ISPs.

[CaptHayfever]

If by "what if" scenarios you mean "already promised by the ISPs themselves" scenarios, then yes.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Shane]

What ISP has promised to throttle traffic if you don't pay more? All the majors at least publicly state they support net neutrality, with or without government intervention. Whether that's actually the case is open to speculation, but I would expect them to be more subtle than to make an immediate blatant policy change daring Congress to intervene, although they do all say they think legislation should be passed, not just an unelected body deciding for political reasons to implement or deimplement something, to only be overruled by the next guy after the last guy couldn't get anything permanent in place.

[CaptHayfever]

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Shane]

I don't understand how that says what you said, nor find it particularly compelling. Surely that's not the extent of the alleged abuse over the course of a decade that has people freaking out. The ISPs are actually saying (in current year) they support net neutrality. Whether they mean it or not is the question I'm posing. It's possible the concern will prove to be warranted, but that concern so far does not seem to have an established basis.

[Random User]

I think the safest thing one can do is assume that ISPs will abuse the ability to throttle whoever they please when there are no legal repercussions and no competitors. Whether or not ISPs will force us to pay extra for certain packages, they have historically throttled competition for their platforms quite often. I think that's a larger issue that points to this deregulation actually inhibiting a competitive marketplace rather than enabling it.

[Shane]

I don't trust them any more than most people do, but regulation for the sake of regulation isn't on the table for the foreseeable future. Obama was and even now still is so vocal because nothing actually went through legislative process, so all it took was another party to come and undo. The goal posts are at least predictable if Congress gets involved, even though they aren't very reliable and have a very narrow margin to actually pass anything.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

I think the safest thing one can do is assume that ISPs will abuse the ability to throttle whoever they please when there are no legal repercussions and no competitors. Whether or not ISPs will force us to pay extra for certain packages, they have historically throttled competition for their platforms quite often. I think that's a larger issue that points to this deregulation actually inhibiting a competitive marketplace rather than enabling it.

I think this is most practical way to think, but Shane brings up decent points.