There's an analogy I read a while ago that may explain net neutrality better. Imagine a company that owns roads, a large chunk of them so that if you ever want to drive on those roads, you have pay a subscription. The government places a regulation that ensures this company can't discriminate or selectively increase the price for trying to access a building or place. For example, lets say you want to go to a political rally to support your beliefs, or you want to go to a preferred company that sells something the way you like it, then the road company should have no business interfering with what the individual can legally want. However if this regulation goes kaput, they can restrict certain sections of their roads behind paywalls, and leave out lesser known sections. If that political rally goes against what they like, then they could increase the price to get there by an amount nobody could afford, or if that company you like isn't paying extra to the road company, then its price to get there will increase too.
The ISPs are controlling a massive marketplace within a marketplace and their status as a corporation shouldn't change the fact that equal and fair treatment of those who enter the marketplace is a must in order for those busineses to flourish according to capitalist principles.
The nature of ISPs right now allow their monopolistic/oligarchal nature. Building internet lines is extremely expensive, and so it's not like new companies are willing to place a risk in entering that market, and if they do they'll have to do with lobbying from incumbant corporations. Sattelite internet is reliant on clear skies and certain factors that make it not as stable as cable often is. Also they're more expensive than other options and are datacapped.
wjfox, eacao, Cody930 and 1 other like this
Everything is predefined.