Steven's analogy to the postal service is the most apt in this video. 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.
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.
If the problem is between Facebook and its potential challengers, hamstringing ISPs is an awfully roundabout way of dealing with it. Especially because we already have a regulatory apparatus to deal with issues related to competition: antitrust laws.
Time to bury the non-functional authoritarian idea of people control that has been negated by circumstances and technology. Wednesday was a "Day of Action" in support of net neutrality regulations; large tech companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon all showcased their support for the regulations.
Generally speaking, it's ISPs who oppose net neutrality, and content providers who favor it. ISPs have much to gain by being allowed to control what they offer in their pipeline (for example, the streaming services they are already starting), the way Microsoft controls what they offer in their operating system.
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.
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.” Cell phone networks , which are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations, don't engage in such anticompetitive behavior.
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.
The people who are REALLY going to be hurt the most are the small companies trying to self host or start new data centers. Net Neutrality is a nice sounding term for government control. A range of state and local fees apply only to common-carrier telecommunications services—which is what the FCC just made your broadband internet service.
Plenty of stuff when the government isn't scared of corporate money, and scared of real people. Reddit CEO Steve Huffman discusses the fight for net neutrality as the FCC votes on new regulations for the internet. The majority of the country only have access to one ISP, and I don't see any new cable companies offering all TV channels; that's why IPTV has become so popular.
They are monopolies because the municipal governments generally do not allow multiple players to use the same right-of-way to lay networking Steven Crowder Net Neutrality 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.