CantRememberUsername

Rayz2016 said:

Is that the band with the one-armed drummer?

It depends.

Hysteria: Yes.
Pyromania: No.

I'm celebrating by blasting the original recording of "Photograph".

seanismorris said:

Apple deceived millions into buying new phones when the problem could have been fixed at the Apple store for $79.

If they did nothing, older batteries cause phones to spontaneously reboot at times of high demand.
With the throttle, instead of rebooting the phone would slow down until the processing demand came back into what the battery could currently support.

This would cause the lifespan of the phone to be longer, not shorter as people would put up with a phone that is sluggish a hell of a lot longer than a phone that reboots.

Still, Apple should have forthcoming about the it and provided notification when it was in effect.

My prediction:

In two years time there will be a few uppity ISPs that try to do something stupid and a few high profile "OMG! The sky is falling, the-internet-is-over, dogs-and-cats-living-together" over-reactions, but all-in-all there will be no significant difference for the vast majority of internet users and sites in accessibility, speed, or costs.

If I'm wrong... fix it using the legislative branch and executive approval.

melgross said:

What Garbage! The entire idea her is for this to happen. We’ve seen baby steps with AT&T giving special privileges to subscribers if they also subscribe to Direct TV (or whatever it’s called). That automatically makes every other service more expensive.

You realize that happens just as much under Net Neutrality, right?

When an ISP can't single out Netflix for taking 50% of its bandwidth to serve 5% of the ISP's users it has no choice but to raise rates for all customers to cover the increased costs.
Non-Netflix users are subsidizing the Netflix users.

The only difference between the two cases is that under "Netflix Neutrality" the consumer has no choice in what services to support.