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.
ISPs have to submit proposals for any "new technology or business model" to the FCC, which will severely hamper innovation. So what your saying is that the government failed to prevent Comcast from slowing customers internet speeds based on streamed content. Net neutrality was another attempt to silence truth and give government control over another aspect of American society.
The ISPs want to hit Google, the Music stores, Amazon, Facebook and other profitable business. And these two thirds' choice” often has to be either Time Warner Cable or Comcast- two of the most abhorrent and hated companies in the United States, but successful only because of lack of competition.
The battle between state governments and federal governments will increase as blue states believe that they are protecting the Internet by reinstating net neutrality regulations. I bet that when google fiber came in, the other ISPs suddenly had to up their game because they knew that consumers with a choice don't have to tolerate the bad service any more.
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.
The new catch-all provision may well apply to internet companies that now think they're not subject to the rules. In fact while Net Neutrality sets regulations for ISP's treatment of data, these giants are free to throttle data as they see fit. It also requires all Internet providers to disclose their net neutrality practices, and will hold ISPs accountable to these practices.
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.
If the problem is Steven Crowder Net Neutrality 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.
In fact, on Monday, Montana became the first state to ban internet providers from receiving state contracts if they won't follow net neutrality rules. Netflix having to pay extortion to deliver services to people already paying for bandwidth and service. His major point here is that Google and Facebook, the two biggest businesses are pro net neutrality, so it seems to me the internet is parroting big business propaganda.
Companies like Comcast don't have to worry that their users will simply select from another ISP that is still offering an open internet. This should be about the American people wanting a free and open internet versus the ISP lobbyists who just want to line their pockets, not left vs right.
Net Neutrality makes it for 1 gb of data from source A has to be treated the same as 1gb of data from source B. Now that it's gone, Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon have total control over what we can and can't access on the internet. Without net neutrality, this type of private arrangement between ISPs and the big services providers becomes legal.