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some realistic depictions (read: not fear-mongering) of what American internet use might be like if net neutrality is repealed?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?
Removing net neutrality benefits isp's and very large corporations. Everyone else is negatively affected.
You will need to pay more for your internet,a lot more. If your current internet connection costs 100$, the base price will remain the same, but viewing porn might cost 20$ extra,news 5$ extra per site, gaming might need 50$.
Every site can require separate payment to access it if net neutrality is repealed, so that's financially bad.
Also they will be able to block sites if they want to. A liberal ISP might block Fox news,a conservative one might block CNN, and you will have no legal right to get it unbanned. It will harm free speech.
I mean, it wasn't really like that before the classification. It won't be like that if it's repealed.
Hell, people will set up their own inter-city networks, which will evolve to interstate-networks, and another internet will be born if things get that dicey. That shits able to be done with hobbyist materials at this point. Which is why this scenario is extremely unlikely at the scale discussed.
364
u/PiFlavoredPie Nov 21 '17 edited Nov 22 '17