Thread by @ErrataRob

There are few things showing the stupidness of #netneutrality more than this story of "Verizon throttling firefighters": the firefighters opted for a cheaper "throttled" plan instead of the more expensive pay-as-you-go plan. Such throttled plans are allowed under netneutrality.

https://twitter.com/EFF/status/1035284545254318080

This demonstrates how the basis of #netneutrality is based on twisting everything that happens as being the fault of the Big Bad Corporations, which finds ready acceptance because of the prejudicial belief that corporations are inherently evil.

When you reach your bandwidth cap that you pay for in your cellphone plan, what should happen?
(1) they charge you overage fees
(2) they block any further
(3) they throttle your traffic, prioritizing it below paying customers
(4) allow the customer to choose which option

The concept of #netneutrality is that customers shouldn't be allowed to choose what's best for themselves, but that regulators should instead choose which is best for customers.

California firefighters chose poorly, choosing the throttled plan because most of the time, Verizon didn't actually throttle them. When they were throttled exactly as Verizon promised, suddenly it became Verizon's fault, not theirs.

Such throttling is allowed under any version of "#netneutrality" that you care to name, such as Tim Wu's original definition, the "Open Internet" order that Trump's FCC rescinded, or California's proposed law:
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billText…

The best argument you have is that Verizon wasn't clear about it's terms of service and when throttling would happen. That's an FTC issue, not anything like broadband/mobile regulation issue.

This thread started with EFF's tweet, because they are Orwellian on this issue. They increasing advocate for the Internet to be regulated like a utility while at the same time celebrating JPBarlow's declaration it shouldn't be regulated like a utility: eff.org/cyberspace-ind…