Steven's analogy to the postal service is the most apt in this video. In other words, with the FCC controlling the ISP market they can and will use their power to coerce them into providing content that's more toward their liking. Another argument to point out is that getting rid of net neutrality allows both of the biggest ISPs to collectively agree to change the nature of how isps are run all together to keep other competition out.
Net Neutrality has its positives, but doesn't protect the free internet like people suggest. People assume that critiquing Net Neutrality is inherently in favor of corporate data throttling and slower internet, but it's not the case. Content providers are allowed to flag content on their own platforms because it's their platform that's being accessed.
What exactly is the financial barrier to entry for new ISPs under net neutrality? Besides, it is not the ISPS who are actually blocking things that ordinary people want, this is more so done by Facebook and twitter in which they block out conservative articles and leave in ones done by Social justice warriors.
The elimination of net neutrality gives companies the full right to track our packets using deep packet inspection for the purpose of treating our data partially. Both companies are likely to be targets if NN is repealed: ISPs don't care how they're making money, they just care that they haven't been gifted a suitable tribute.
Which means that my ISP, Comcast, cannot slow down Netflix in order to compel me to buy their overpriced streaming video service because it goes faster. Pioneers that created all things internet wright FCC, hey you don't understand the internet, leave Net Neutrality in place.
This is a very long and detailed article about the business side of Net Neutrality — how it stifles innovation and how the FCC is wasting resources and overregulating what never needed regulation in the first place while completely and utterly missing what's important: harboring competition and innovation.
Of course I believe in the possibility that ISPS can block content and raise prices but the FCC has power to still stop this, otherwise the FCC is not needed at this point and really has no purpose if you really think that all doom is lost if we are under ISPs.
ISPs have to submit proposals for any "new technology or business model" to the FCC, which will severely hamper innovation. So what your saying is that the government failed to prevent Comcast from slowing customers internet speeds based on streamed content. Net neutrality was another attempt to silence truth and give government control over another aspect of American society.
Research the difference between ‘dedicated' service and ‘best-effort' service, and the economics behind running an ISP., and you'll quickly realize that an ‘all-you-can-eat' internet means congestion for everyone. The problem is that many people in the US dont have a choice in which isp they use which if net neutrality goes away it gives the isp 100% control over what their customers see and at what speed.
If people are surfing myspace for only an hour at night, and are watching low resolution cat videos in a quarter web page, providers can make some reasonable assumptions and charge users appropriately. As Ben Shapiro wrote in 2014, Consumers would dump those ISPs in favor of others” if those ISPs slowed down or blocked data as favoritism toward certain sites.
Ian Tuttle notes at National Review that when the FCC first attempted net neutrality regulations in 2010, they were only able to "cite just four examples of anticompetitive behavior, all relatively minor." Steven Crowder Net Neutrality Cell phone networks , which are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations, don't engage in such anticompetitive behavior.