Steven's analogy to the postal service is the most apt in this video. Net neutrality simply means that ISPs cannot block or degrade lawful internet content above and beyond reasonable network management. 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.
2. Under Title II, the Internet is subject to a bevy of regulations at the whim of the FCC. He isn't being purposely wrong, but he is diverting attention to Google and Facebook censoring content which is a reasonable point but falls under a different category separate from net neutrality.
But net neutrality advocates have sounded alarms that the repeal could give internet providers too much control over how online content is delivered. Meanwhile, other ISPs have increased their offerings to compete: Verizon and AT&T both recently announced plans to offer higher-speed Internet hookups for customers in select areas.
While I think less things the government are involved in the better, I think in terms of internet growth and innovation it's important to limit the type of BS that major companies like to do. Trying to claim that since big corporations aren't a part of government therefore they are not evil is simply not true.
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.
It removes the Title II designation, preventing the FCC from putting tough net neutrality rules in place even if it wanted to. And, it turns out, the Republicans now in charge of the FCC really don't want Steven Crowder Net Neutrality Video to. The new rules largely don't prevent internet providers from doing anything.
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.
I don't want the government or any multilateral international entity to have the power to regulate internet and it's content, because it is near impossible to fight against. Additionally, the FCC also has the power to "partially regulate the capital investment of existing companies" and determine "which companies (if any) can enter the ISP market," per Tuttle.
Government exists to serve people, and people want net neutrality. And they're not huge like Netflix, Amazon, etc to be able to pay any ISPs for the privilege of a fast lane, yet together they would be large enough to make political difference. The FCC data shows that all of the delinquent cable companies made strong improvements since the FCC's initial reporting.
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.
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.