If net neutrality dies, grab a pitchfork and torch and march straight down to congress so we may gather everyone there and tear them limb from limb!

No, don't actually do that... as cathartic as an angry mob sounds, it's not the best way to retaliate. But I don't think net neutrality will die tomorrow. We've been through this song and dance before, and every time it happens, they back down in the end... only for them to wait for another opportunity to try and kill net neutrality.

I really do hope we pull through with this and pass the bill that prevents this from ever happening.

I'm with Ryan on this one

Even if it passes the internet will not die instantly...changes just don't take effect overnight like that, it takes time. Also too, if the repeal happens its not the end of it. The next stop for this matter will be the court rooms...

^ this.

Ya, honestly, you are likely not going to see much of a difference at first and it's likely not going to cause such severe effects as some seem to imagine.

I'm actually aware that the changes would be gradual but eventually it would get bad enough that it's unbearable

I doubt it. Think of it this way. Would you stick with your ISP if they took away access to a lot of sites you like? Chances are no, you would probably drop them. So then that begs the question, why would they block sites if it risks them losing customers? What would be the purpose?

I really do not think they would go so far simply because they want money, not less money. This is probably more about selling fast lanes to companies while putting people who do not pay behind slower lanes. Something we really need to remember is the US is not North Korea. So why on earth are we expecting it to be anything like that? It just doesn't make sense to me. There is no benefit for companies to go that far.

The problem is that some people cannot "drop" them because some areas only have one ISP provider.

Supernova, it seems you misunderstood. Why would you need the internet at all if you can't access any of the sites you like? Also, even if it means going off the grid for awhile, why would you not protest? To me even if a service is the only one in the area, I would not use it if they did that sort of stuff. Not until they stopped at least. I would hope others would too. Am I wrong thinking that?

I agree with the first part of you statement, but the second part has one caveat. Because everyone relies on the internet for everything now, you are making it difficult to perform everyday tasks. For example, I rely on several databases to conduct work for my college courses. If they are throttled as a result of the act, I am unable to even have an education without paying fees that I do not have money for in the first place. On top of that, this will eventually become an international concern as most foreign countries (aside from countries like China or Japan) use servers based in the U.S.

You do know we have not always had net neutrality right? Did you find it difficult back then?
Even if they did throttle things, it's not going to prevent you to such a degree to where you wouldn't be able to get an education without paying extra fees. Heck, even a 56k modem likely wouldn't prevent you from completing your courses.

Too many of you seem to be under the assumption that just because a company can do crappy things means they will or that they will do it in the worst possible manner if they do it. I think EA is a good example of when going too far is very harmful.

Actually net neutrality has pretty much always existed. It was just the second provision that became law in 2015. Also, companies have been known to do "crappy things" such as when At&t throttled costumers between 2007 to 2009 when they blocked skype from phone services because it was threatening their business.

Ya, I understand that. I am only pointing out it's not going to be nearly as bad as many like to try to make it out to be.