Steven's analogy to the postal service is the most apt in this video. The example of FedEx trying that would not work either because people who paid for 2 day services would be demanding their money back and it would be pasted all over the web and news outlets, and the market would correct itself again. Burger King's commercial is an attempt to educate and ignite the public to take action against the FCC, hoping that the public believes that they are fighting to keep the Internet free and open.
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 an ISP decides to curate what you can access then they are deciding whose content you can access, not which of their own content you can access. There's also the issue of how isp's maintain any kind of monopoly which is a) regulations and b) net neutrality.
Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon were explicitly prohibited from speeding up or slowing down traffic from specific websites and apps. 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.
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.
But net neutrality in my opinion, should be kept, because I don't benefit from it. I don't want the internet to be split up into packages like in Portugal: ( ) because what the IPs are selling is access to companies they don't own, and these websites and services have been free.
They purchase and distribute content and they purchase packet time from the companies that own the infrastructure. The problem is consumer interests are not represented in these backroom deals combined with the fact that there's insufficient competition to cause ISPs to worry about loosing customers.
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.
Also, you are a bit blind Steven Crowder Net Neutrality Video 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 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.
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.