maxotics

I always keep coming back to this comparison of 2 Medium Format, and a 50mp Canon DSLR versus a Quattro DP2 and well guess what, no matter where you move that target to the Sigma wins every time. It is an amazing camera. You have to substitute the Sigma DP2 for one of the cameras listed there and just move it around to different targets on the test. I got rid of the Nikon D850 but..
https://***URL removed***/reviews/nikon-d850/8

Any chance you also recorded on camera? The info shows you had sd card in with space. You might have to use the internal recording (if it exists).

I think that is a good lesson for everyone to look at the footage (and listen the audio!) before calling a wrap. 

That B&W picture taken of the women with the horses is, well that is pretty amazing to put it bluntly.

In a studio environment, where size/weight isn't a real concern, a Nikon D8XX will be faster and more flexible than the Sigma.   Because the Sigma camera doesn't have a bayer CFA, but samples colors vertically, it can deliver as clean an image, color-wise, as the best Bayer cameras IMHO.  However, the color RED is sampled last in the sensor (bottom layer), so it loses some nuance.  Shouldn't be a problem in a studio environment, but you have to light correctly.  Also, these sensors have only 6 stops of DR.  That's MY opinion, many will say that incorrect.  But I throw it out there for you.  It does NOT detract from the camera for me, that's all I need, but it's something you should know if you're not exact with your exposure. 
To use a baseball analogy, these cameras either strike out or hit home runs.  Base-hits aren't their thing.
These cameras excel in any image where a bayer sensor can be confused by thin strips of light or dark, like a person's hair in the sun.  The bayer sensor will miss color information and create color artifacts.  For example, a strand may only hit the red and green pixel, creating a reddish little blotch after de-bayering (but you'd need to pixel peep).  The Sigmas don't succumb to this.  So outside, with a strong backlight, the Dp3 can take a portrait that exceeds what any Bayer sensor camera can do--in a very small package.
In short, if you need to travel light, can work slow, and want to do some portraits outside, and you have good light, the Dp3 can deliver shots that will bring tears of joy to your eye.  Also the images do have a different look. 
This is a fact, if they were as fast and sensitive as bayer sensors no one would use anything else.  I recommend that every serious photography try these cameras out.  So I recommend doing what Mattias did.  I'd certainly LOVE to see some portraits done with the camera.  One my list of things to do one day too. (I had a dp2q).
 
  

We all know that cameras are terrible investments.  They instantly lose value when you open them and they’re no longer new-in-box, and then they steadily lose value over time.  It really only makes sense to think of a camera as an investment if you’re a business buying a camera that will directly impact your ability to get work or if you’re a collector selling rare antiques.  Otherwise, you can only plan on losing money on whatever camera that you buy.  Buying a camera and expecting it to increase in value is usually really silly.
At the same time though, cameras lose values at different rates.  Some cameras command used rates very near their launch prices, and other cameras sell for way less than their initial price a year after launch.  Importantly though, I think the value of a camera over time can show how forward-looking the company that launched the camera was with that model when it released it.  A camera released in 2014 that’s still relevant right now had valuable features in 2014, but is also is still competitive in some way in 2017 (or 2018).  
I’m thinking that the forward-looking value of a camera can be calculated based on a few points of data: first, how long the camera has been on the market; second, how much the camera cost when it was initially released; and third, how much the camera is selling for used today.  In short, I think the difference between what a camera sold for when it was released and what you can buy it for used today can show how competitive the camera is relative to other cameras.
So, what I did was to search out data for some of the most commonly used cameras for video and analyze how old they are, how much they sold for when first released, and how much they sell for now.  The short version is that I made a Google Sheet and compared the values of cameras over time to see which cameras held their values best over the months they’ve been on the market.
The long of it is this: I made ten columns in a Google Sheet.  The first column identifies the camera.  I chose cameras that are most discussed on the blogs that I frequent, like this one, but I purposely excluded cameras that are also super popular in photography, like the 5D Mark II and III.  Their used online value might be less attached to their video functions than others here.  The second column is the number of months the camera has been on sale.  I used the actual “the camera is available on B&H” date whenever possible.  For cameras where the announcement date and the sale date weren’t hugely different, I didn’t make a distinction.  For cameras (like some Blackmagic cameras) that were announced and didn’t go on sale until months later, I used the actual “available for sale” date when I could find it.  I rounded to the nearest month.  The third column is the original price that the camera sold for.  The fourth column is the new price as of 12/19/17 (this is mostly for my curiosity and doesn't actually figure into any of the calculations).  The fifth column is the used price as of 12/19/17-12/20/17.  I used the lowest “Buy-It-Now” price from eBay (US) I could find for each camera, but I only accepted cameras that I would actually purchase (if I was looking for one) based on their being used but totally functional and coming from buyers with decent feedback.  The sixth column is the used price as a percentage of the initial new price.  For example, a camera that debuted for $2,000 and now sells for $1,000 is selling for 50% of its initial price.  The seventh column is the percentage of value lost divided by the number of months the camera has been on the market.  I found the percentage of value lost by subtracting the percentage of the new price that the camera sells for used from one.  The eighth column is the tiny percentage from the seventh column multiplied by 10,000 to make it more readable.  I’m basically creating a “value score,” where the lowest number is the camera that has retained its value the best.  The ninth and tenth columns are whether the camera shoots in 4K or raw, respectively, because I wondered whether that would make an obvious difference.
This is a graph with each camera’s “value score” (the percentage drop per month multiplied by 10,000), rounded to the nearest one.  Essentially, the lower the score, the less value the camera has lost over time, or in other words, the better it’s retained its value relative to the number of months it’s been on the market.
 

Here’s all the original data.

So, basically the FS7 has lost very little of its value over time, while the Canon XC10 has lost a ton of its value over time.  Most cameras fall in the middle range.  Interestingly, every major company has a camera in the top five, and every major company also has a camera in the bottom five.  Interestingly, 1080p and 2.5K cameras do pretty well by these calculations.  The BMPCC, BMC, Panasonic GH2, BMMCC, and GH3 have all held their value relatively well, while a lot of 4K cameras have lost value relatively quickly.  I wondered whether raw shooting cameras would do better, but I don’t think there’s a strong correlation.  I’m sure there’s some complex relationship between resolution, codec strength, lowlight ability, sensor size, marketing, and a million other factors, but I don’t know what it is.
Interestingly, it’s also possible that the most popular cameras sell for lower prices relative to their new prices because so many people have bought them and used supply is high when those customers decide to move on to new cameras.
However each camera has maintained its value, I think the cameras with low scores were (are) futuristic in some way.  They have to be to still be relevant today, or to have still been relevant so recently (in the case of the GH2).  
There’s a lot of limitations to my analysis.  It’s mostly for fun and to drive discussion.  First, the eBay prices are a tiny sample over two days.  I’ve seen cameras go for a lot lower than the prices listed here.  I saw a BMMCC go for $550 a few days ago, but when I actually did the analysis the lowest price I could find was $800.  That’s a substantial change, but I wanted to take all the prices from one window of time.  Second, I don’t think eBay is (usually) actually the lowest price source for buying a camera used.  The cheapest BMPCC I could find is $580, but there’s one on BMCUser now that’s less and comes with a cage.  
I’m totally open too to the fact that my math might be less than perfect.  I’m not a statistician.  I’m just a camera nerd with love for data.  Please feel free to point out how I could make it better or if it’s all not valid at all. Or, please let me know if I’ve missed major dates, miscalculated months, or mistook the initial price.  I threw this together pretty quickly out of curiosity and can fix it.
I’m not picking on any particular camera.  I’ve almost bought an XC10 a few times.  At the end of the day, whatever camera you buy needs to fit your needs, and the idea that it might retain value isn’t really important if it’s meeting those needs.  
But, some cameras hit the market and are so cutting edge that they hang on for years.  My goal was to look backward with data to see which cameras those were.

Self appointed LOG police here.  A camera's normal gamma profile is designed to maximize color saturation across an 8/24-bit gamma curve.  As soon as you shoot LOG, you accept a trade off between gray-scale DR and chroma.  The improvement you'll get shooting external 422 (if the camera shoots internal 420) has nothing to do with the banding from chroma spread out too thinly on a gamma curve, it is about compression.  To reduce data 420 substitutes more color than 422.   Two different types of banding (or color loss).  I'm just extending what @Don Kotlos said above.  My 2-cents is don't shoot a LOG profile that will give you noticeable banding (which depends on what you shoot) and expect a more lossless CODEC to save you

Why sell your external recorder?  Was that what I suggested?  I only said that banding can be a result of an aggressive LOG profile, as Don said, or from too little color information due to a high compression CODEC that uses 420.  We both have different roles, right?  You shoot and grade real stuff I assume.  I'd hire you over me to go shoot something.  I test stuff, a more scientific approach.  We're here to educate each other, I hope   Just so the OP can make sense of this I will explain some of this stuff in more detail, as I understand it!
Many filmmakers believe their cameras record color just like our eyes/brains do.  But they don't.  Cameras can only see in gray-scale actually.  The manufacturers put color filters over alternating pixels and then composite a "color".  But it's not really a color.  It's just a brightness value of light through a filter with the noise floor of the silicon as a reference/floor.  Too much brightness, and the value doesn't change.  The #1 confusion I see is the belief that these values have an implied relative brightness; that is, that the brightness difference between 100 and 200 would mean double the brightness as we see it.  That SHOULD be the case, but isn't.  The camera records linear, we see exponentially.  But even that is IN THE WEEDs.  The fact is, as YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST TO POINT OUT, the real world of grading is getting an image that looks right to the viewer, or conveys the feel the filmmaker wants.  That will  mean adjusting the relationship of brightness across the image... 
But but but..., you must have enough color data to fit your display gamma or you will notice where you don't have enough color, which is banding in smooth color gradients.  You can't widen your gamma (LOG) in a fixed data color space (8-bit) and assume that you will always have enough color information in your image to fully saturate a gradient.  Don was basically saying, the less aggressive LOG you use, the less chance you have to run into banding.  AGREE!!!!  And he'd know more than I about which LOG profiles do what in the real world.
Let me say this again in other words.  Extending a gamma beyond the amount of color data you have can increase banding.  Similarly, forcing more color into a narrow gamma will result in an image that has no discernable visual difference, which is why LOGs can have benefits in certain circumstances (they exploit what may be unnecessary color data). But you have to really know your shit to know when that is!  What I learned in my experiments is I did NOT know my sh_t
As for the external recorder, I was just pointing out that its benefit can affect banding, but is a separate issue from how it happens when using a LOG gamma for shooting in an 8bit space?  The OP should really be clear about the differences, right, before assuming one will fix the other?  If he was, I don't believe he would have asked the question because it's very subjective, or too variable to give an objective answer, right?
Are we friends again?

First, very nice looking!  A gazillion times better than anything I could do!  So please take my thoughts in that context.
Without the right juxtaposition, all art, from music to film, breaks the spell, which can only be one.  What is the spell you're trying to get the viewer under?  
I start, I'm following a guy walking down an alley.  It seems very confined.  Has a title, am I in a James Bond movie, who is this guy?  Then a swoosh sound.  And I'm now with him in a building, a large stage, smokey light, a piano-- another young guy.  Is the film really about the piano guy, both of them?  The other guys starts singing.  I see him from one angle, then another, then another.  Then an orchestra.  But no one is in the audience.  Why?  Why a big orchestra and no people?  Then he's singing close to the mic.  then he's singing far away from the mic.  Lips don't see perfectly in sync with music--okay it's a music video.
A music video.
So my question is, were you directing to create a story or just filming?  Something to think about next time maybe.
I thought this a very interesting analysis of music videos done by David Fincher, if you haven't seen it.
 

It's also a pretty shitty mic. I use it for my VO but have to record under a blanket + carpet and process the hell out of it in audition. Still ends up sounding off, lacking bass and with this weird reverb, though I get tons of comments about having a great ASMR voice. :P

Well, since no one else is pitching in. Without meaning to be rude, it's pretty bad.
I'm not sure if it's just the compression you've used or maybe there's a denoise/pass filter put on? 
I'm by no means and audio specialist, and don't know any of the terminology, although I'm trying to work on that. With that in mind, I can hear a kind of high pitched garbling sound throughout the recording, the best I can equate this to is what you can sometimes hear on a corrupt mp3. 
Did you do anything in post to the audio other than levelling? If so, maybe provide an untouched recording? Have you treated the garbage can in anyway? 
Check out The Booth Junkie on YouTube, he has some incredible budget voice over booth solutions, and I've been working on building my own. If you like I can send you some examples and a description of my setup later today? Like I said though, I'm far from an expert, just trying to get the best sound I can out of the limited knowledge I have haha.

I bet bit rate will end in a solid key to avoid it as much as when "only" 8bit 422:

sample (not mine) extracted from (minute 28:30):
https://vimeo.com/114978513

@maxotics, Hey, awesome post! External recorder will help, as that XAVC is highly compressed. It´s not the 8bit part but the compression showing banding.

In a studio environment, where size/weight isn't a real concern, a Nikon D8XX will be faster and more flexible than the Sigma.   Because the Sigma camera doesn't have a bayer CFA, but samples colors vertically, it can deliver as clean an image, color-wise, as the best Bayer cameras IMHO.  However, the color RED is sampled last in the sensor (bottom layer), so it loses some nuance.  Shouldn't be a problem in a studio environment, but you have to light correctly.  Also, these sensors have only 6 stops of DR.  That's MY opinion, many will say that incorrect.  But I throw it out there for you.  It does NOT detract from the camera for me, that's all I need, but it's something you should know if you're not exact with your exposure. 
To use a baseball analogy, these cameras either strike out or hit home runs.  Base-hits aren't their thing.
These cameras excel in any image where a bayer sensor can be confused by thin strips of light or dark, like a person's hair in the sun.  The bayer sensor will miss color information and create color artifacts.  For example, a strand may only hit the red and green pixel, creating a reddish little blotch after de-bayering (but you'd need to pixel peep).  The Sigmas don't succumb to this.  So outside, with a strong backlight, the Dp3 can take a portrait that exceeds what any Bayer sensor camera can do--in a very small package.
In short, if you need to travel light, can work slow, and want to do some portraits outside, and you have good light, the Dp3 can deliver shots that will bring tears of joy to your eye.  Also the images do have a different look. 
This is a fact, if they were as fast and sensitive as bayer sensors no one would use anything else.  I recommend that every serious photography try these cameras out.  So I recommend doing what Mattias did.  I'd certainly LOVE to see some portraits done with the camera.  One my list of things to do one day too. (I had a dp2q).
 
  

Why sell your external recorder?  Was that what I suggested?  I only said that banding can be a result of an aggressive LOG profile, as Don said, or from too little color information due to a high compression CODEC that uses 420.  We both have different roles, right?  You shoot and grade real stuff I assume.  I'd hire you over me to go shoot something.  I test stuff, a more scientific approach.  We're here to educate each other, I hope   Just so the OP can make sense of this I will explain some of this stuff in more detail, as I understand it!
Many filmmakers believe their cameras record color just like our eyes/brains do.  But they don't.  Cameras can only see in gray-scale actually.  The manufacturers put color filters over alternating pixels and then composite a "color".  But it's not really a color.  It's just a brightness value of light through a filter with the noise floor of the silicon as a reference/floor.  Too much brightness, and the value doesn't change.  The #1 confusion I see is the belief that these values have an implied relative brightness; that is, that the brightness difference between 100 and 200 would mean double the brightness as we see it.  That SHOULD be the case, but isn't.  The camera records linear, we see exponentially.  But even that is IN THE WEEDs.  The fact is, as YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST TO POINT OUT, the real world of grading is getting an image that looks right to the viewer, or conveys the feel the filmmaker wants.  That will  mean adjusting the relationship of brightness across the image... 
But but but..., you must have enough color data to fit your display gamma or you will notice where you don't have enough color, which is banding in smooth color gradients.  You can't widen your gamma (LOG) in a fixed data color space (8-bit) and assume that you will always have enough color information in your image to fully saturate a gradient.  Don was basically saying, the less aggressive LOG you use, the less chance you have to run into banding.  AGREE!!!!  And he'd know more than I about which LOG profiles do what in the real world.
Let me say this again in other words.  Extending a gamma beyond the amount of color data you have can increase banding.  Similarly, forcing more color into a narrow gamma will result in an image that has no discernable visual difference, which is why LOGs can have benefits in certain circumstances (they exploit what may be unnecessary color data). But you have to really know your shit to know when that is!  What I learned in my experiments is I did NOT know my sh_t
As for the external recorder, I was just pointing out that its benefit can affect banding, but is a separate issue from how it happens when using a LOG gamma for shooting in an 8bit space?  The OP should really be clear about the differences, right, before assuming one will fix the other?  If he was, I don't believe he would have asked the question because it's very subjective, or too variable to give an objective answer, right?
Are we friends again?

In a studio environment, where size/weight isn't a real concern, a Nikon D8XX will be faster and more flexible than the Sigma.   Because the Sigma camera doesn't have a bayer CFA, but samples colors vertically, it can deliver as clean an image, color-wise, as the best Bayer cameras IMHO.  However, the color RED is sampled last in the sensor (bottom layer), so it loses some nuance.  Shouldn't be a problem in a studio environment, but you have to light correctly.  Also, these sensors have only 6 stops of DR.  That's MY opinion, many will say that incorrect.  But I throw it out there for you.  It does NOT detract from the camera for me, that's all I need, but it's something you should know if you're not exact with your exposure. 
To use a baseball analogy, these cameras either strike out or hit home runs.  Base-hits aren't their thing.
These cameras excel in any image where a bayer sensor can be confused by thin strips of light or dark, like a person's hair in the sun.  The bayer sensor will miss color information and create color artifacts.  For example, a strand may only hit the red and green pixel, creating a reddish little blotch after de-bayering (but you'd need to pixel peep).  The Sigmas don't succumb to this.  So outside, with a strong backlight, the Dp3 can take a portrait that exceeds what any Bayer sensor camera can do--in a very small package.
In short, if you need to travel light, can work slow, and want to do some portraits outside, and you have good light, the Dp3 can deliver shots that will bring tears of joy to your eye.  Also the images do have a different look. 
This is a fact, if they were as fast and sensitive as bayer sensors no one would use anything else.  I recommend that every serious photography try these cameras out.  So I recommend doing what Mattias did.  I'd certainly LOVE to see some portraits done with the camera.  One my list of things to do one day too. (I had a dp2q).
 
  

Why sell your external recorder?  Was that what I suggested?  I only said that banding can be a result of an aggressive LOG profile, as Don said, or from too little color information due to a high compression CODEC that uses 420.  We both have different roles, right?  You shoot and grade real stuff I assume.  I'd hire you over me to go shoot something.  I test stuff, a more scientific approach.  We're here to educate each other, I hope   Just so the OP can make sense of this I will explain some of this stuff in more detail, as I understand it!
Many filmmakers believe their cameras record color just like our eyes/brains do.  But they don't.  Cameras can only see in gray-scale actually.  The manufacturers put color filters over alternating pixels and then composite a "color".  But it's not really a color.  It's just a brightness value of light through a filter with the noise floor of the silicon as a reference/floor.  Too much brightness, and the value doesn't change.  The #1 confusion I see is the belief that these values have an implied relative brightness; that is, that the brightness difference between 100 and 200 would mean double the brightness as we see it.  That SHOULD be the case, but isn't.  The camera records linear, we see exponentially.  But even that is IN THE WEEDs.  The fact is, as YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST TO POINT OUT, the real world of grading is getting an image that looks right to the viewer, or conveys the feel the filmmaker wants.  That will  mean adjusting the relationship of brightness across the image... 
But but but..., you must have enough color data to fit your display gamma or you will notice where you don't have enough color, which is banding in smooth color gradients.  You can't widen your gamma (LOG) in a fixed data color space (8-bit) and assume that you will always have enough color information in your image to fully saturate a gradient.  Don was basically saying, the less aggressive LOG you use, the less chance you have to run into banding.  AGREE!!!!  And he'd know more than I about which LOG profiles do what in the real world.
Let me say this again in other words.  Extending a gamma beyond the amount of color data you have can increase banding.  Similarly, forcing more color into a narrow gamma will result in an image that has no discernable visual difference, which is why LOGs can have benefits in certain circumstances (they exploit what may be unnecessary color data). But you have to really know your shit to know when that is!  What I learned in my experiments is I did NOT know my sh_t
As for the external recorder, I was just pointing out that its benefit can affect banding, but is a separate issue from how it happens when using a LOG gamma for shooting in an 8bit space?  The OP should really be clear about the differences, right, before assuming one will fix the other?  If he was, I don't believe he would have asked the question because it's very subjective, or too variable to give an objective answer, right?
Are we friends again?

But it is getting better. 
A novel made with the help of AI actually got pretty good reviews http://bigthink.com/natalie-shoemaker/a-japanese-ai-wrote-a-novel-almost-wins-literary-award 
I expect AI to significantly improve color grading as well based on the content of the image. 
And if you haven't heard AI generated music before I strongly suggest visiting this link and playing with the parameters:
https://deeplearnjs.org/demos/performance_rnn

The announcement is that the GH5S has not been annnouced.
It’s looking like it will be better in lowlight, possibly have better DR and a couple of new frame rate options. 
It’s unconfirmed as to whether there will be an “Auto Hollywood Mode”, where any video you record will instantly look like Hollywood.
 

There are two issues which confuse the matter.  The first is a franchise you need from the government to install cable, or set up microwave towers, etc., on public property.  The reason most ISPs can charge what they want is they got in first (with telephone or cable and can reuse it for Internet) and, like you say, matching what they do is very expensive.  It's probably not as hard as you think to start a high-speed ISP where you live/  What makes it practically unfeasible is the expense you need in legal fees, engineering reports, environmental assessments, etc., in getting the government to give you the right to string cable.  However, the rules are public and there's no real reason you can't do it.  Those phone companies and cable companies did it.  We can elect a government tomorrow that says anyone can string up cable anywhere.  If they did that, you'd have a lot of choices in ISPs.  You'd also have wires all over the place and with each one a bit cash strapped whose to say the service would be good?  There is something to be said about economies of scale in large companies 
As I said elsewhere, States should build "neutral" network through higher taxes or bond issuance.  But NOOOO.  No one wants to pay for it  
The second issue is one of pricing regulation.  I'm against fixed pricing because economic studies have shown, over the centuries, that any kind of pricing control eventually backfires.  People are just too good at getting around them and the energy they spend doing that ends up in the price of the things you're buying.   That why ending Net Neutrality isn't some crazy idea.  If the companies really do want to raise rates, what's to stop them now?  They do want to raise rates, yes, but on services they can't offer now because of price controls.  They will also LOWER prices on things where there is too much competition or supply.
It's the fear of change that really drives the politics of net neutrality.  If there are problem at least NOW people can say, it's a complete free market, so why don't have have 2 ISPs in Southern California.  Then maybe we can have tax incentives to change that. 

In the same way the Chinese government "protects" the internet. A regulated free-market is a contradiction in terms. Indeed, it seems strange to me how the language of the whole debate has been taken over and reversed. I suspect in the same way that the "antifa" use violence to fight "fascism". You mention two plan options like having choice in plans is a bad thing or like being able to find and select the cheapest best option for your internet use is a bad thing. I get the impression that pro-NN supporters think providers are just waiting for their chance to provide bad deals, to drive away customers, and go bust. Cue Palpatine "muhahaha ultimate powa!" Like I said, it seems more like everyone (I see I'm in the minority) is leaping on the feed-me-government bandwagon. I'm not convinced. 

Well, I read from time to time Alex Tutubalin blog (RawDigger, FastRawViewer, LibRaw) and all the cases he describes as developer of raw files manipulation tools made me to think this way. He has an idea about raw metadata and how to apply it but often gets some strange results with new cameras. They are usually not affecting general style photography but can be found by raw analysis or in some extreme shooting conditions, like:
https://www.lonelyspeck.com/why-i-no-longer-recommend-sony-cameras-for-astrophotography-an-open-letter-to-sony/
But I guess it's safe to think there is quite some fine tweaking inside modern photocameras. Is it applicable to cinema cameras? Hard to say, but why all these companies avoid the benefits of modern processing power? Like, Sony a7R3 chews 420Mpix/s for stills, so it's capable in theory to apply same processing for 4K 50fps stream.
I'm no expert in ML but looks like in general for raw recoding it's a side hack that grabs image from memory buffer at some stage of processing pipeline and dumps it to card. Who knows, maybe this issue is corrected later in processing or it wasn't designed to be corrected in this sensor mode or operation mode.

One if the major things that has not been mentioned is that the loss of net neutrality would allow ISP's to throttle the speed to specific sites. So a company like Amazon will pay a premium price to get a high speed but a smaller site will see it's speed reduced when it can't afford to pay off the ISP. They could decide to throttle sites for any number of reasons. Basically the big corporations will have the highest speeds and everyone else will be slowed down. It's a total cash grab and just about everyone here is against it. Surely the ones who are pushing this through are going to rewarded down the line. 

I often see people constantly engaged with their phones and other devices as if their life depends on it, so companies better not make people to mad by throttling their internet or possibly charging different “preference” rates to some just because they may use a competing app, services or often visit certain sites that are in direct competition to the internet service providers own viewership and other similar services or products that they may also provide. Individuals who use exorbitant bandwidth outside of a fairly normal modern day “connected” usage lifestyle, should of course pay more or be subjected to some limit if it is very excessive and they are not willing to pay more based on the current system. Businesses are in the business to make money and hopefully innovate a bit, but need not be everyone’s friend. Most would understand that.
However, it has also been discussed that different possible negative methods could be used by ISP’s (especially in regions with little or no competition between providers) and ultimately implemented without some level of Net Neutrality being retained. One can not be sure of course, but for example the possible manipulation an ISP may impose on those only using “partial” subscribed services in an attempt to favor their own services/products over another companies competing product is one area alluded to previously. Imagine an ISP tracking every website and subscribed services you use (Netflix, Youtube, Hulu, Amazon, etc) over their provided/subscribed service connection and then deciding that since you only pay for one of their internet service plans, rather than some bloated reality TV, Internet, Phone package bundle of theirs, they then decide to essentially punish you for it. The large dinosaur media conglomerates merging with IPS’s is just part of that. Without Net Neutrality it would lead to more structured systems of the past and would then probably lead to exorbitant service fees to “entice” you to then pay only slightly less exorbitant fees for their bloated packages/services type of a structured system from days of olde. They could then essentially charge more and also get “their preferred” advertising sponsors/partners to market to you instead of some other platform you may use over their subscribed internet service that one may be using currently. It is not in the best interest of consumers and the ISP industry would just agree on what is most favorable to them and move on. Let’s not pretend they were ever on the side of the consumer. It has always been a shell and numbers game in the industry. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a large shareholder, works for the industry or is a lobbyist… or a politician who just got paid in some form or another. Go ahead, it’s ok to give your middle finger to the “man” every once in a while or at least feel that you still can. It is ok not to always just accept whatever the implied status quo is or something your being told to do as an only option. It is just good practice to questions things sometimes.
 
Continued privacy issues around ISP’s offering up users info to marketers or getting direct ads that can not easily be blocked coming from an ISP directly would probably be expanded as well (unless you subscribe to their other products maybe). I guess router level VPN’s are going to be more popular then. So, don't make the kids mad either or there will be hell to pay… it may not readily happen, but will sooner rather than later if what I have seen in the past is any indication. Oh, and I think that some areas or categories of both the ISP and healthcare industries in the US should be nationalized. All things in these realms are unfortunately very political it would seem. Politics aside, who is then really representing the consumer’s best interest and concerns? Perhaps not perfect, but Net Neutrality is maybe better than the other idea of absolutely nothing.

Stupid name - which is part of the problem, but I'm firmly in support of keeping the current rules. The changes are being driven by companies that have monopolies in many communities and are chomping at the bit to charge us more. I've been traveling around the world, we pay more and get less than many countries in Europe and Asia. Same for cell service, there are so many more companies offering service in many places outside of the US. I counted 13 providers in India - all were giving away phones and many were offering 6 months of free service at a fraction of what I pay. How I wish Google Fiber could go nationwide and put a beatdown on the crappy 50Mbps service I pay $100/mo for.
The are many issues with the elimination of Net Neutrality, another is the fact that companies like Time Warner or Comcast can charge for access to competitors of their own networks. If you live in a community that's only served by Comcast - which owns NBC - they can upcharge for access to CBS, ABC, Fox and so on. They can charge content providers for access to the network and then charge us for access to the content providers. So we'll pay more to the ISP's and more to the content providers.
And there's also an access issue, rising costs are going to impact low income households and rural communities. Ending Net Neutrality will not result in more infrastructure investment since again there is virtually no competition across most of the US. The only places we see significant investments are where there's competition. 
Cable companies also pay little or nothing for access to taxpayer maintained lands to bury their lines. Then they lobby hard against competitors being granted construction permits to maintain the monopoly. 
This is a lobbyist driven move so ISP's can squeeze more out of its customers while delivering less. All of the noise is just distraction tactics. The "we're not going to change anything" stuff from ISP's, like AT&T's claims, are just bunk. Prices will spike quickly and there's little anyone can do because there are simply no other options in most places. I don't know what the answer ultimately is - whether its regulation, creating government owned public utilities similar to power and water or something else - but allowing profit driven mega media conglomerates to have a monopoly and the ability to do whatever they want with internet access isn't the solution.
Ending Net Neutrality is simply a cash grab by ISP's and nothing else.