http://mashable.com/2017/12/12/net-neut ... YZjb5XjsqRHow could this affect you?
Imagine having to pay an extra $10 per month so that Netflix streams fast enough to watch movies. Or that an app creator needs to pay AT&T millions of dollars so that new customers can actually access it on the company's wireless network.
These accessibility issues are the kinds of things that net neutrality proponents theorize could happen without regulations. Once major companies are able to start negotiating with each other over how data flows across the internet, there's no shortage of ways to pass higher costs on to consumers while scuttling innovation.
Why do we need the FCC for net neutrality?
This is a key component to the net neutrality debate.
Net neutrality proponents argue that when internet providers are allowed to do whatever they want, they will inevitably violate net neutrality in order to make money from companies like Google and Facebook, which have plenty of cash and would love to tilt the playing field in their direction.
Opponents of net neutrality regulation argue that the internet has done just fine without aggressive governance, and that the FCC's rules limit investment (a point that has not proven true).
What semblance of a free market we had in that industry is over until Congress actually does their job and implements some regulation. Other than that, our only hope is for the Supreme Court to squash this ridiculous notion that the FCC chairman has some special power to preempt state laws.
This order wouldn't bother me much if it weren't for the inherent power-grab. I am frankly shocked that some of you would defend the notion that an unelected FCC chairman claims the power to preempt state laws. This merchant mindset runs deep, apparently.
Ain't nothing traditional, conservative, or right wing about being a money-grubbing little whore.