Steven's analogy to the postal service is the most apt in this video. We need actual Net Neutrality but we also need infrastructure investment and the alternative was to increase everyone's internet bill and no one was going to be happy about it. By billing heavy users like Youtube money is going to come from advertising companies that advertise for those same big companies that people seem to hate so much.
Don't fuck with my good internet I don't want to have to pay 124$ just for good internet to watch youtube look things up and play video games. The Government can't do whatever they want, but I agree with Net Neutrality because repealing it is a way to make companies big bucks that's all.
Discussions about net neutrality surfaced in December 2017 when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to overturn the 2015 Open Internet Order set in place by President Obama's administration. If we didn't have net neutrality in the 90s, there would be no Google - we'd probably all be searching using AltaVista or whatever search engine made enough money to pay to make Google too slow to use.
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.
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.
If you got rid of the monopoly of isps you could get rid of net neutrality but as it stands there will be many customers who will get sites and services blocked or slowed down and have no alternative. So any future attempts at people control will be negated by everyone and anyone manufacturing their own without government interference.
To elaborate, the FCC has more power and won't let shit like that happen in Europe because the FCC requires internet providers to gain approval from them of their proposals of creating new technology or creating a new business model to the FCC, which could stop internet providers from getting to their 'corruptive ways' as you think they are going to do in the United States.
Municipal broadband could allow for private ISPs to not have net neutrality while protecting the internet as we know it which I argue would be a compromise between these Steven Crowder Net Neutrality Video two positions. However I actually think the biggest threats may not necessarily originate from monopolistic ISPs, but instead from big online internet companies that would like to become effective monopolies online.
As the FCC prepares to vote on new Open Internet rules that will open the door for increased investment and digital innovation, there is a lot of misinformation that this is the "end of the world as we know it" for the Internet. All of the fear-mongering in support of Net Neutrality about censorship, throttling data, big business charging higher rates, etc… IS ONLY MADE POSSIBLE BY THE GOVERNMENT RESTRICTING COMPETITION.
The majority of the USA only has access to one ISPs, and ISPs already charge various fees for no reason, and nobody likes it, yet they can still do it because there's no reason for them not to, and the same will be true with throttling if the non-net neutral internet regulations pass through congress.
Also, if you really think about it, Net neutrality doesn't give everybody free equal internet access. Without net neutrality, nothing prevents ISPs from simply introducing their own streaming services and blocking or at least throttling competing services. +HouseHoldAdventures: Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the ISP competition.