Net Neutrality, Explained
Steven's analogy to the postal service is the most apt in this video. And no matter how many times this Chairman tells you that for now the rules won't apply to internet service X, he can't guarantee that they won't next year (or next month). It's no wonder that one 2014 study estimated net neutrality regulations could result in as much as $45.4 billion in new ISP investments being lost over the next five years.
Also the amount of ISPs and the amount of buisnesses on the internet, it is simply a simple "couple die for many" situation. Under Net Neutrality, the large tech giants have done more censorship and data throttling of content than any ISP ever did before. 1. The instances of ISPs slowing down or blocking data to favor certain sites over others are few and far between.
Government exists to serve people, and people want net neutrality. And they're not huge like Netflix, Amazon, etc to be able to pay any ISPs for the privilege of a fast lane, yet together they would be large enough to make political difference. The FCC data shows that all of the delinquent cable companies made strong improvements since the FCC's initial reporting.
The FCC would also eliminate a rule barring providers from prioritizing their own content. They couldn' t thrive in a market of net neutrality as these rules created a monopoly of these big corporations, as small isps were not able to take part in a free market and didn't have the opportunity to compete.
They are monopolies because the municipal governments generally do not allow multiple players to use the same right-of-way to lay networking infrastructure, which results in a substantial cost disparity for new entrants, if it doesn't completely prevent those new entrants from providing service at all.
ISP stands for Internet Service Provider. Unlike now where there's no room to compete with the big isp for the little guy because there's really only two categories that people care about that isp companies can compete in under net neutrality: cost and connection speed.
Those rules prevented internet providers from blocking and throttling traffic and offering paid fast lanes. The big telecom companies can just say to Google "pay us X or every customer of ours gets throttled to your site". Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said on Wednesday that he's beginning to roll back net neutrality rules, a process he says will promote competition, create jobs, and give more Americans access to high-speed internet.
But under net neutrality, the FCC basically had control over ISPS and could use their power to force them into providing content that's more toward their liking (which is just one of the forms of censorship under net Steven Crowder Net Neutrality neutrality). What's new is the the reclassification of the internet to Title II, essentially classifying it as a utility, and barring ISPs from favoring content.
Also, you are a bit blind of the fact that ISPS did not say that they would not slow down the internet for certain things like Netflix, what they're saying is that they are going to speed certain things like Netflix up with higher quality internet if the consumers do pay.
The reasons for that were to prevent government control of the web, and to let the content industry flourish. In the long run, Internet and technology companies, now FCC supplicants, will have to divert funds from new services and network design to fending off regulatory intrusions and negotiating with the Internet's new zoning board.
ISPs already add various charges and fees, all net neutrality does is prevent them from selectively manipulating internet content; whether they charge fees pertaining to throttling or not is irrelevant, charging fees for faster speeds is just one example of how throttling is implemented in other countries without net neutrality.