> Which is basically what the bill reinforces -- so the question from a simple person like myself is, "If you believe in not blocking or throttling or interfering with someone's ability to access/navigate the Internet, then how exactly will a law meant to prevent such things affect your business?"

They're saying they support something that everyone wants (basicaly, net neutrality) while not really wanting it to pass, but are arguing that the only way to implement it is to do things that completely undermine it. It's a common tactic I've seen other companies use in other fields too. Basically a "we want to redefine what <blank> is in such a way that it suits us and undermines what everyone else thinks <blank> should be."

And as a consumer, I really wish they'd just right-out say what specifically they have in mind that is going to be prevented or inhibited by the passage of this bill. This sort of empty-speak does nothing for anyone and instead just muddies the landscape on an incredibly important discussion.

I'm not completely naive here -- I get that likely it's just ISPs wanting to ensure that all revenue streams remain open regardless of whether the current landscape allows them to utilize them or not, but it's so incredibly frustrating to read a statement like what Frontier put out and to walk away with absolutely nothing from it.

Frontier put forward 180 words with absolutely no content to them -- there is no statement or idea presented except "we don't want this bill", and then a bunch of empty claims that read like virtually every political speech. ("We love freedom, small business, and apple pie")

There is a business decision behind this and it would be very refreshing to just know what that decision is. It is impossible to agree with Frontier or any ISP's resistance to Net Neutrality when all you get are headline blurbs and there is no understanding of their position. I understand the polemic of this, but it's still frustrating nonetheless as there can't even be a discussion on Frontier's position except for the fact that they don't want Net Neutrality. It reminds me of a child's tantrum, except with children, at least they have the excuse that they lack the ability and skill to articulate why they want or don't want something.

Here's a question for you then about the definition of net neutrality. Would it be net neutral to treat all data as the same net value but partition the cost differently? I.e. the cost of data from Wikipedia would fall on the consumer while the cost of Youtube data would fall more on Youtube?

I cannot think of any way this could be implemented 'neutrally'. Who decides whether consumers or company pays for accessing a given site? The ISP or (lol) FCC? Neither one have proven themselves competent enough to make such important decisions.

If Frontier decided to make a youtube alternative, they could decide that now consumers have to pay for the cost of youtube data while their own service cost is covered by them with no cost to the consumer. And now we've come full circle to a non-neutral net.

I agree with you but something different, called "net neutrality" could be implemented trivially; just make sure the net revenue ISP receives from all external entities, for X amount of data is equal.

I'm just trying to say that "net neutrality" already has a political definition that isn't the only way to interpret those words, so its probably fair for the opposition party to try and redefine it. However I also agree that trying to quibble about definitions is usually not a good way make an argument convincing.