Aside from the fact that we now have to foot the bill for large companies that use a lot of bandwidth, and the fact that it invites draconian control over the internet that makes it harder for small companies to start up?

Not to mention, I'd say that burden of proof is on those that want to invade the net with massive regulations, not those who want to prevent such.

If such a case if ever presented, I won't be surprised if "copying the files out of Steam's folder" is counted as "cracking the DRM". Disgusted, yes, but not surprised.
Sadly, they don't need to prove anything, they have enough money to pay a few bribes.

I would. It would mean that the defending lawyer really sucks at his job. Especially when he can show that the very same files are considered DRM-Free by publishers when distributed through other services.

Technically that would need one of the three :
-a decision that copying does count as cracking, in which case the lawyer will need to really suck to allow
-a precedent saying the same
-legislation stating the same

The first two are unlikely but the leaked stuff shows that members of the TPP will have to enact laws / legislate the terms into their constitutional / legal system so the third may happen ONE DAY.

This might be a valid point.

And giving preferential treatment to large companies with large pockets would help small companies how, exactly? I can't even imagine how guaranteeing an even playing field is going to lead to "draconian control"...

...although I suppose it makes sense if one thinks all regulation is "massive" and inherently evil. I don't know how to help with that - read less Atlas Shrugged, maybe? Ironically SOPA, PIPA and TPP were all created by companies that would be screwing us over in a million more ways if it weren't for regulations.

The moment TTIP, TPP, etc... are effective and companies make the laws of the whole western world, I can totally see that happening since Microsoft Windows 10 may be an integral part of this and so are Intel's "Insider" and AMD's "TrustZone" low level DRM systems built directly into your processors.

It's about total control and our new corporate kings are building this for a long time now with their firm grasp on the big political parties in many countries.
I recommend using Linux, buying AMD processors that do not yet have TrustZone in them, supporting DRM-free gaming, supporting OpenSource software development, etc...

SOPA, PIPA, and TPP are the same sort of regulations that NN is. NN just has a nicer sounding name to make it more palatable. I'd much prefer a system where large companies that use more bandwidth have to pay more for that bandwidth. You pay for what you use, THAT would be a level playing field, which is the exact opposite of what Net Neutrality promises.

I mean, surely you'd complain if you had to help pay the electric bill for a skyscraper that you have no ownership or control of? Would it suddenly be okay with you if they just called the idea "Electric Equality"?

It's the end of the world.

I better play all the games in my backlog before society collapses and there's no more electricity.

Looks like its.already happening:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J2gPlnqqKxQ
Probably UK humour only.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/1000459/

At the bottom line, you can use electric eels as a source for electricity! Don't worry!!!

This is just adding to the unenforceable bullshit. Considering how most EULAs would collapse instantly in court if faced with a defense that knew what they were talking about (with the catastrophic domino effect thereafter) this could only make publishers' positions even more precarious. Their bullshit has somehow managed to run on fumes for decades now. They should be discouraging any effort that sees them having to enforce their position.

Actually, I take back what I said before - this isn't a valid point.

Of course companies should pay according to the bandwidth they use. They do. That's not what net neutrality is about. The problem is ISPs treating different types of traffic (streaming video, VoIP, P2P etc.) inequally - by charging specific companies extra, throttling the traffic, or blocking it entirely.

Is it so difficult to believe that someone might actually disagree with you, rather than be blinded by buzzwords?

It'd be a lot easier to believe if the same people were also arguing for similar bills, or if they seemed to have any idea of what net neutrality actually was. Ironically enough, some people who have argued for net neutrality actually believe it'll lead to a freer internet, not at all seeming to realize what it is.

Anyways, I guess you think that 800 and 900 numbers should be eliminated (here in the US, they operated under different rules from standard telephone numbers), and that different types of airplanes should be eliminated? Why is having more choices for what one buys a bad thing? If someone can work out special deals with the ISP, that's between them and the ISP- and beyond that, if you knew anything about computers, you'd probably want certain types of data to be prioritized. It's a lot more annoying to have video streams interrupted for a second than it is for a torrent to slow down for a second.

So... to prove that I think net neutrality is not similar to those bills, I would have to agree that it is similar to those bills. OK, you win. I can't compete with that logic.

Sounds like this won't be around for long even if it is ratified. Clinton, Sanders and Trump all don't like it. Let's hope TTIP suffers the same fate.