Steven Crowder Net Neutrality's analogy to the postal service is the most apt in this video. 2. Under Title II, the Internet is subject to a bevy of regulations at the whim of the FCC. In 2015, interent service providers were able to offer bonus internet content to their consumers and a wide array of certain internet packages. People assume that critiquing Net Neutrality is inherently in favor of corporate data throttling and slower internet, but it's not the case.

The ISPs want to hit Google, the Music stores, Amazon, Facebook and other profitable business. Also, if you really think about it, Net neutrality doesn't give everybody free equal internet access. 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." Cell phone networks , which are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations, don't engage in such anticompetitive behavior.

The FCC has long been committed to protecting and promoting an Internet that nurtures freedom of speech and expression, supports innovation and commerce, and incentivizes expansion and investment by America's broadband providers. Net neutrality benefits Ben directly, since without it he would have to pay Verizon, Comcast and a ton of other ISP's for the privilege of having their customers be able to access his websites without waiting 10mins for each page to load!

Even worse the government could possibly step in and say "hey telecom company, slow down every liberal media outlet and block their content we don't like, but keep convervarive media going." This creates a one sided problem where the powerful decide what the public gets to consume and thus could be used for swaying public opinion.

Meanwhile, other ISPs could calculate that they want to absorb the costs of YouPorn in order to carry YouPorn, since YouPorn could refuse to pay the fees to the first ISP. The new catch-all provision may well apply to internet companies that now think they're not subject to the rules.

Plenty of stuff when the government isn't scared of corporate money, and scared of real people. And government oversight of internet companies is the reason that there is a lack of competition in the broadband service market." Government doesn't promote innovation; it promotes tax generation.

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. Ending net neutrality is ending internet freedom, this will be a financial boon for isp's and an expensive kick in the balls for small businesses that rely on internet freedom.

Remember this notorious quote regarding the equally notorious and equally hated Obamacare?: We have to pass it so that you can find out what's in it." The same applied for the 300+ pages of regulations making up Net Neutrality- only very few people were privy to what the regulations actually do before it got passed.

He mentions the big argument for net neutrality is that it doesn't allow ISPs to give preference to one site or another when the two big instances of this occurring before net neutrality was shut down quickly because of the market responding to it. Sites are able to manage the internet and increase performance to provide better service to compete with competition.

A lot of ISPS with a demographic for families with kids gave them packages where they blocked pornography and innapropriate things, and they have had the right to do that since 1996, as they are able to restrict access to something they consider to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.