The general idea with almost any law prohibiting something is that if the law is put in place before a problem arises, you can nicely prosecute the entire case in court. However, if you wait until a problem comes up, there’s going to be a huge legal battle that with ISP’s will probably be dragged all the way up to the supreme court, and the law prohibiting it will only be changed afterwards.
Now, let’s say a drawn-out legal battle occurs. Then, net neutrality would become a hot-button political issue. But where do you learn about net neutrality? The ISP’s would control the majority of the information available on the topic, and given last election year, we see that what’s on the internet matters a lot to the average voter. It’s about protecting free speech, only the threat of censorship most likely isn’t coming from the government (although it’s not inconceivable that someday it might).
And I know lots of people here are naturally suspicious of anything Obama does, but net neutrality is a concept that’s existed long before anyone had the foggiest idea who he was. In other words, it wasn’t his idea, he’s just jumping on a bandwagon.
And there is a point that needs to be made in these threads. The number of people here whose entire sum of knowledge on the subject consists of "Obama is for it" and that they saw someone say 'net neutrality' in the same paragraph as 'Fairness Doctrine' is disheartening to me. Press them on the issue and they fall back on "All government regulation is always evil".
sigh.