Essentially, it would be a significant rule change for the informational highway.

Like with highways right now, cars, trucks, tractor trailers, busses, etc all share highways equally. They can hop on and drive on it at any time, use any lane, and everybody is expected to obey traffic laws and speed limits.

Imagine if highways were changed so that the fast and middle lanes were reserved only for commercial traffic (tractor trailers, busses, etc), and all non-commercial and commuter traffic was required to be in the slow lane. Traffic would become a nightmare.

Not a perfect analogy, but that's basically what could happen.

Yup.

ISPs can detect VPN tunnels, and can easily throttle those or block them entirely.

They could also throttle VPN providers or require VPN providers to pay additional fees for using certain networks or services.

That's a good point, and I could see the argument ISPs could make for it.

In a nutshell, net neutrality basically ensures that service providers providing internet access are acting as neutral parties when it comes to the data that flows on their networks.

It ensures that everyone has equal access to any content available online. It isn't "regulation" per say--it's protecting unhindered access to online content.

This is similar to telephone service. You can call anyone and anyone can call you. Imagine if phone companies started regulating who could call others and when and for how long. You might suddenly find yourself unable to call your friend across town because he uses verizon and you use AT&T because of whatever corporate shenanigans the two companies are involved with that prevent you from having equal access to phone service. Or, you phone calls are arbitrarily limited to 60 seconds before being disconnected.

Net neutrality is the idea that your access will not be interfered with by organizations that provide that access.

They did not come up with the initial concept or contribute to its initial development, but technically, they installed the cabling/fiber and networking equipment that made it accessible to everyone.

I received something similar.
-----------

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 2015 Open Internet Order. I share your belief in the need for strong net neutrality.

The new FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, recently announced the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle the Obama-era FCC rules that required Internet service providers like AT&T and Comcast to treat all internet traffic fairly. This would unravel net neutrality and the FCC is moving in the wrong direction. It will neither invigorate our economy nor spark innovation. Instead, it will limit choices for consumers and greatly increase costs for American start-ups. Keeping the internet open is critical to twenty-first century freedom and innovation, for both businesses and individuals alike.

In 2014, I joined my Senate colleagues in writing a letter to then-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler urging him to adopt strong net neutrality. I will continue to press the Trump administration to support a free and open internet and maintain critical consumer protections.

I believe the federal government can help ensure that all American households have reliable internet access at a reasonable cost, and will continue to fight for protection of net neutrality.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please keep in touch with your thoughts and opinions.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

Oops, I just skimmed the first line and figured it was a similar form letter

Some posts on Twitter are saying there was a bomb threat

Other posts are saying it's just protesters interrupting.

[edit]: Yeah, nobody actually knows yet.

[edit2]: the feed was showing security going around with dogs, so it seems like the issue may actually be a bomb threat.

Well, it was a 3-2 vote to repeal net neutrality. Can't say I'm surprised. Big mistake, IMHO.

pasted_image (resized).png