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.
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.
Net neutrality is what the web has had since its inception and this had been further enforced in 2010 , when The new regulations in 2015 were passed to help ensure net neutrality would be enforced, and that ISPs would not be allowed to throttle or block specific websites, nor charge others extra for access to their users.
There are laws in place to ensure the government does not packetsniff (data collect) on people. Furthermore, since the ISP is likely your only high speed pipe to the internet, you don't have much in the way of market competition. 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.
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.
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.
Net Neutrality Steven Crowder Net Neutrality Video 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.
Maintaining the FCC's heavy hand in the ISP market will only harm consumers. Netflix is widely popular in the united states, to keep this running, the Internet service providers said that the consumers under its ISP should pay for the massive infrastructure upgrades necessary to provide that service.
UPDATE: The FCC has admitted that these new rules give them authority over what ISPs can charge customers, and apparently some Republicans in congress have a bill drafted that would replace the FCC's 336 pages of regulations with only six pages- supposedly without the governmental overreach.