I don’t get it either.
net neutrality is more like what we have now than the alternative, which would allow cable/ISP companies to control access to websites. If they didn’t like certain websites, or if certain websites didn’t pay extra money, they could block them or slow the feed to a trickle.
Seriously??
Please go drink your Kool-Aid someplace else.
You are missing the point
The fight over net neutrality means a fight between NetFlix and Comcast (in essence)
NetFlix want to turn into a cable TV provider of sorts. Starting with streaming movies but soon it will stream TV episodes and more
Comcast already does exactly this by making movies and various TV channels available and then even video on demand. Net neutrality means Comcast cannot charge NetFlix (who will then charge you) for all that streaming of content (which is very high bandwidth) into your house that Comcast is already willing to provide. This means people have an incentive to just get Comcast internet and not Comcast TV too
Net neutrality means Comcast has to host a parasite (and competitor) within its operation that has never paid for laying cables, for infrastructure or for service technicians who visit you when your internet goes out. Comcast wants to be able to at least charge this parasite who will then have to jack up your prices making them less competitive.
Net neutrality means people have an incentive to get rid of Comcast altogether and get internet via AT&T (we have Comcast and ATT here) and have zero cable TV. But then selectively stream in movies and CNBC (in the future) via NetFlix or a NetFlix competitor such as Amazon
Comcast could care less about low bandwidth sites like Free Republic or Politico. What they care about is high bandwidth rivals such as NetFlix and others who will stream content into your house.
Say you only really watch 5 TV stations out of your cable lineup. In the future you may be able to get those five via NetFlix and pay only $15/month instead of paying 65$/month for Comcast cable TV