Net neutrality is in jeopardy again

95% of tech? I agree that we already have monopolies, but I vehemently disagree on net neutrality being one of the causes. In a system without net neutrality, the already established companies or monopolies would gain even more power than they have right now.

>All they'd do is offer other services as alternatives to the big dollar ones like YouTube.

And they'd put data caps on competiting services, while allowing unlimited streaming of their own (we've already seen them do this).

In markets with 1 or 2 viable ISPs, what is your solution?

I like how you say "massive monopolies" then list 5 companies (all competition one way or another) and an etc. That sounds like a healthy market.

Also in what world does giving ISPs complete control of which services can even function on the internet help the "little guy"? You'll just replace the relatively healthy tech market with a 0 innovation series of walled gardens managed by each megacorp ISP-MediaCompany union.

Someone whom has read and UNDERSTANDS the Net Neutrality legislation AND code of regulation, please comment. If you have only stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, please restrain yourself :-)

Having been a user of the Internet prior to the birth of the HTTP standard, I find these arguments spurious, straw men, and red herrings. But, I am open (probably more open, than my progressive peers) to being better informed. So please help... and don't flame. Advance ideas.

"Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech. Without net neutrality, big companies could censor your voice and make it harder to speak up online. Net neutrality has been called the “First Amendment of the Internet.”"

Help me to understand how freedom of speech was attenuated, prior to Net Neutral, or how was it ACTUALLY threatened? Why couldn't I have published my own blog or editorial site, now or in the future?

"Net neutrality is fundamental to competition. Without net neutrality, big Internet service providers can choose which services and content load quickly, and which move at a glacial pace. That means the big guys can afford to buy their way in, while the little guys are muscled out."

Why wouldn't other Internet services step into the void, to fulfill a demand? Perfect example: As in China, the Great Firewall has caused a boom in VPN / tunneling technology, to fulfill a consumer demand for government-free access to information.

"Net neutrality is fundamental to innovation. Without net neutrality, creators and entrepreneurs could struggle to reach new users. Investment in new ideas would dry up, and the Internet would start to look more and more like cable TV: so many channels, but with nothing on."

Any honest person would refute the assertion that "investment in innovation would dry up." There will always be wild-cat investors seeking huge multiple returns and willing to dump stupid cash on a bunch of white dudes in hoodies.

However, I would stipulate that large corps like Fakebook would be better able to absord the risk of innovation, ergo innovations may be captive to large companies... and that would stink for eager entrepreneurs.

I do, however, think that revenue-sharing concepts that include the transmission companies, modeled after the cable monopolies of olde (cable cutting is killing that model) could be a suitable alternative to todays two-tier model (transmission vs. content).

"Net neutrality is fundamental to user choice. Without net neutrality, ISPs could decide you’ve watched too many cat videos in one day, and throttle your Internet speeds — leaving you behind on the latest Maru memes."

This is true, I have no argument for this... ala AT&T "unlimited bandwidth" (small print) until you get to 20GB and then we will throttle your device until it is essentially useless, as a smart device :-( (BTW, kiss my @$$ AT&T for that).

Your argument glosses over the difference between a last-mile private corporation controlling every byte of content and the government simply preventing the practice of route prioritization.

Just because you are in favor of preventing route prioritization doesnt mean youre in favor of the bizarre absolute opposite of government "controlling content".

nobody (I know of) is advocating government control of content. That is a different discussion entirely from net neutrality.