I don't know a lot of people who were okay with it. It worked, that was great and all, but judging by how quickly cell phones and alternative messaging was adopted, clearly there was some room.

Cell phones work without a wired connection. Of course it took over.

My apologies. Cable is even better than it was before, with on demand services and even more channels. The problem is less about what cable can't do and how cable was largely overtaken by the internet in terms of options.

I mentioned $50 and 5 years. I had On Demand 5 years ago. Nothing improved drastically enough to cost $50 more. If that isn't obvious, they offered me a lower price when I canceled their services. They don't need to charge more, they wanted to charge more and unfortunately they were able to do that without a significant risk of losing customers because there aren't many options.

Right, it's unique to America that we have them. I feel as if I've been hearing about data caps elsewhere for as long as I've been exposed to high speeds on the web.

Yeah, I'm talking about the networks set up in America.

I don't, because it was never an issue to begin with and did not appear to be on the horizon. It was completely made up.

It's not made up, there have been offers and discussions. This is a real thing that will happen without net neutrality. But I'm glad you're against it.

What? ISPs carry no costs to maintain their networks? Really?

Same costs they've been paying for years under the unlimited system. The networks are in place, the costs aren't rising unless they run fiber, in which case they'll get more income.

Well, right, and why is there no competition? Local governments. Regulation.

It's because they're actively fighting against it and somehow this is allowed. As I said, they're suing cities that try to set up fiber networks.

No, and it's part of what I'd like to avoid with the codification of net neutrality as a law. Much like we'd be better off without local government-granted monopolies for internet service, we'd be better off without net neutrality regulations.

Net Neutrality is exactly what we have now. It means letting the internet be instead of trying to regulate it. The law would take that away. With no law, there's net neutrality. This part has made me realize you have no idea what you've arguing for. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.