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.
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.
Why aren't people holding up open access signs not FCC controlled "neutrality" magically the FCC created the neutral net and ISPs pulled will watch south park episode how to tame a horse in minecraft. That's because Ben's video didn't tell us why a free market works without competition.
The battle between state governments and federal governments will increase as blue states believe that they are protecting the Internet by reinstating net neutrality regulations. I bet that when google fiber came in, the other ISPs suddenly had to up their game because they knew that consumers with a choice don't have to tolerate the bad service any more.
@Robert Webber - I'm not claiming that ISPs are in no way correlated with the internet, I'm explaining the distinction between ISP regulations and internet regulations. But the analogy is incomplete; thanks to its quasi-governmental role, people more or less expect Congress to control USPS policy.
What this means is that Title II entrenches the FCC's tentacles into the ISP market and controls it with an iron fist. Err, what exactly prevents the government from regulating content with or without net neutrality? The free market is the answer, NOT giving the federal government control of anything more than they've already swindled the people and the state's out of.
Having big corporations control my content is something i really don't like thinking about especially when they have ALREADY put arbitrary packages for the internet in other countries. If I start a buisness on the internet, and a company that is not my buisness or having any direct correlation or deals with tge company has the control to set a pay wall on my site.
All this Net Neutrality talk is all based on the fact that you think any government is not going to get paid off by 1 company or another, also the fact that some of the largest companies in the world, like google, Facebook and YouTube are pro Steven Crowder Net Neutrality net neutrality should concern you.
So they are eager to use their monopoly powers on the internet pipe into your home to make sure darn well that you play according to their rules - somebody must pay them - even if some other company is perfectly willing to compete by running their own wire or fiber into your home.
Suddenly new media and website creators could be charged money for creation and inclusion on an ISPs list of non throttled websites, which would taken a long time to be included on. Also as an internet user I would have no control on how fast my internet could be, because as of now my internet speed is the same website to website, assuming good server hosting, but if net neutrality we're to end it could become a huge nightmare to continue to do the things that I love to do on the internet.
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.