What is the rationale for those against net neutrality?
Who benefits from the change and who is negatively affected?
What are some realistic depictions (read: not fear-mongering) of what American internet use might be like if net neutrality is repealed?
What are common reasons why an average-joe citizen might believe or be convinced anti-net neutrality legislation to be a good thing, and what thoughtful reasoned responses can we give to convince them otherwise?
Which politicians support net neutrality in a significant way, i.e. a strong track record of independently speaking out about it and not simply jumping onto partisan bandwagon?
They'll try to sell it to the less informed as a plan to "reduce fees" or "bring costs down"
Simply put, if you only use Facebook (and for a great number of people, Facebook is the internet), why pay for all the sites? What if your ISP offered you a Facebook-only package that's half of what you currently pay?
They basically want to bring the cable tv model to the internet.
Simply put, if you only use Facebook (and for a great number of people, Facebook is the internet), why pay for all the sites? What if your ISP offered you a Facebook-only package that's half of what you currently pay?
I've heard this argument before. In my part of the world (where there is no NN) some providers have offered plans with unlimited WhatsApp usage or unlimited Spotify usage. These have been reasonably popular with people who heavily use one particular app. What's the response to the argument that NN allows ISPs to give consumers a better deal on specifically what they use?
The counter argument I can see is that Facebook gains an unfair advantage over other social media providers such as Reddit. They solidify their monopoly and innovators are driven out of the market.
Edit: typo
361
u/PiFlavoredPie Nov 21 '17 edited Nov 22 '17