Steven's analogy to the postal service is the most apt in this video. And no matter how many times this Chairman tells you that for now the rules won't apply to internet service X, he can't guarantee that they won't next year (or next month). 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.
Since most people are limited by the number of ISPs in their area, these ISPs aren't subject to typical market competition. Sites are able to manage the internet and increase performance to provide better service to compete with competition. One example of Crowder using a non sequitur is where he hypoetchically applies Title II to content providers like YouTube.
For example, a lot of small isps have said that the regulations from Net neutrality have made it harder for them to want to provide internet especially in rural and low income areas, in which Net neutrality prevented them from rolling out new services, make their networks better and viable, and raise capital.
I grant you that in a free market, there exists the possibility that there would be ISPs that would take money to favor one customer over another (your Altavista and Google reference), but that would only be a market opportunity for another ISP to enter the market and offer faster data to Google.
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.
Net neutrality is not an internet regulation, it's an ISP regulation, and the reason why net neutrality exists was due to the FCC and FTC being crushed by ISP scandals and lawsuits which they couldn't keep up with. I suppose the federal government could attempt to regulate, absent net neutrality, but they'd have to do so on content and deal with free speech challenges against the internet provider.
Just think, instead of trying to draw customers by making their products competitive, online companies could start to bribe ISPs to throttle and block their competition even if the ISP had no profit motive to block them before. The rules state in 2010 was later overturned by the supreme because isps were still under title 1. leaving only the part about transparency, of which was redundant because it was already the FTC's job.
Also the amount of ISPs and the amount of buisnesses on the internet, it is simply a simple "couple die for many" situation. Under Steven Crowder Net Neutrality Net Neutrality, the large tech giants have done more censorship and data throttling of content than any ISP ever did before. 1. The instances of ISPs slowing down or blocking data to favor certain sites over others are few and far between.
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.
Net neutrality: the believe that one shoudn't have a paywall from the ISP to go to any site. You'd get relatively little debate from people, including me, presuming the competitive circumstances were different in the US. Free markets are great when companies are fighting over customers and there's plenty of competition!
I do know I'm more than a little suspicious of the very same folks that brought in all the cable regulations 10 years ago which seriously decreased services and caused rates to go up. I was doing work for the cable companies back then, working on their equipment.