>let it be offered by the market
1)
But that is the whole point:
It is warranted, because it is imposed on the providers( at least until law changes).
It is quite obvious that ISPs have no interest in doing so by them selves.
Netflix was slow because Verizon throttled their traffic, not because they didn't have the capacities to route it properly.
They simply wanted a piece of the Netflix Pie.
So net neutrality will prevent that not cause it.
2)
This is not about the big content providers at all. They would simply pay the ISPs a fee and pass it on to their customers.
So net neutrality actually prevents increased consumer fees.
>I had as much neutrality as I wanted or needed before the FCC got involved, from the 3+ wireline and 5+ wireless providers in my area (San Francisco)
3)
The fact that you can choose from so many ISPs in SF is good for you, but you are probably well aware that in more rural parts of the country this is not the case. What will people in those areas do, if their only ISP decides to throttle a protocol
that is important to them?
4)
Most importantly, the traffic we create is growing constantly. Not only Downstream but Upstream.
Especially since more and more "services" become decentralized.
Decentralizing architectures is one of the biggest challenges we face today as internet citizens.
Decentralized search engines, social networks and who knows what will come in the next decades.
Decentralized Systems are more democratic, enable people to actively take part and give us back a piece of independence from the goverment (no, i am not an Anti-Gov't lunatic) as well as corporations.
But for that we need to have our packets routed from A to B without being throttled, because some ISP cannot make a quick buck out of it.
Thank You for Your time!