Because we're not "handing over control" of the internet to the government (as if they don't already have it, but we're just going to pretend the NSA doesn't exist I guess). I have no idea how this rumor started but someone is playing serious disinformation campaign with the term "net neutrality."

Net neutrality is not asking the government to play the role of an ISP. That is a frightening thought. As much as I hate Comcast, I would still pay them to get my internet through them rather than the government.

All we want is specific legislation that prevents ISPs from doing the things mentioned above (throttling, packaging). I don't care what marketing term you want to call it, "net neutrality" "open and free internet", whatever. As long as we can all agree that those things are bad, we should be on the same page here and pushing to prevent ISPs from being able to do it.

There are two ways to do this: classify ISPs under Title II of FCC [current method] OR enact new legislation.

Title II of FCC -- This is the closest thing we have right now to enforce the idea behind net neutrality. But some argue that other requirements (unrelated to net neutrality) that come with being classified under Title II is too burdensome for ISP growth.

So current FCC guy, ex-verizon shill, is threatening to repeal this classification under the name of "too much regulation." But we shouldn't repeal it without another legislation in place to preserve net neutrality. Otherwise we risk the throttling and packaging problems mentioned before. Better to stick to Title II than nothing. This is the drama going on right now.

Saying net neutrality hands over control of the internet to the government is as ridiculous as saying FDA hands over control of meat production to the government. No, we just want some minimum standards that ISPs must follow.