Again, you obviously don't understand what net neutrality refers to, but you also obviously are quite skilled with debate by name calling. Good for you. I guess...
Listen, the only way someone could exercise control over the idealogical content of a website (ala a Fairness Doctrine) is by controlling how content from that site is delivered. Net Neutrality mandates that all content that comes over the pipe that you paid for comes at the speed you paid for. Its meant to stop companies like Comcast requiring that large bandwidth websites, like YouTube and NetFlix and FreeRepublic pay them an additional rate to not throttle the content to their customers. IOW, you get the speed you paid for.
Care to guess how well conservative sites that we frequent would fare in a world where big media companies set rates for transmission speeds to their customers? Hmmm?
"mandates"
Therein lies the problem. Mandates (government regulation) ALWAYS leads to more and more mandates (government tyranny), and it is a short hop from the mandate you describe to "fairness doctrine"-style mandates. In the end I suppose I trust Comcast more than I trust government.
By the way, I only called you a moron because you had previously (and inaccurately) accused me of name-calling. So I figured I'd catch up.
FRegards,
LH