In general I agree that Net Neutrality is a good thing, or let's put it the other way round: The fundamental lack of Net Neutrality would be a very bad thing. Yeah, this way around makes more sense, as something that protects you from evil is not necessarily good; the enemy of your enemy is not your friend, just because you share some common interests.

1. Most people have the incorrect belief that the Internet has always been neutral until recent and now the big companies try to change that. The truth is: The Internet has never been neutral. The Internet, as we know it, which emerged from the ARPANET sometimes in the 80s, had no guarantee for neutrality in USA prior to February 26, 2015 when then FCC reclassified broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service. Prior to that date, the Internet may or may not have been more or less neutral as there was no regulation that would force ISPs to be neutral and traffic prioritization at Universities for example (the earliest civil Internet members of all) used to be the norm as bandwidth was scare and expensive at that time. In other parts of the world, the Internet may have always been neutral, never been neutral up to today, or not have been neutral until recently. The fact that despite the lack of any regulation in that area most people always had a rather neutral access in most parts of the western world shows that even without regulation the neutrality doesn't have to be in danger.

2. The consequence of (1) is that by forcing Net Neutrality upon the Internet means, the Internet as we used to know it from the 80s to 2015 won't be the Internet of the years to come. Forcing neutrality is not preserving the status quo, it is creating something new, it is a change. Or let's say it was a change in 2015, as since that day neutrality is the new status quo. Still, it's a pretty fresh change and change is not a synonym for improvement, it only means things will be different and different is no synonym for better. While I'm pretty sure the positive aspects outnumber the negative by far, I'm not neglecting that there might be negative aspects if neutrality is forced without any valid exceptions like increasing prices, less competition, or a decrease in capital investment. As for you the Internet is just a communication medium, but for the companies that keep it alive it is business.

Keep in mind that use is not the same as abuse. If we'd forbid to sell anything that can be abused, some stores would be pretty empty. The opposite of neutrality is also not censorship. Censorship breaks neutrality but traffic prioritization does as well, just like selectively charging for traffic. I'm strictly against censorship and I'm strictly against any kind of market abuse and Net Neutrality fights both, but it's not a necessity to fight both.

All the negative aspects ISPs mention about Net Neutrality are actually true. The fact that most here would wish they were not or don't like to hear them doesn't make these claims false. Well, of course, they are exaggerating the situation a lot, they fear for their income, especially the loss of existing of future income sources, so there's also a lot of whining, take it with a grain of salt; but at its core the statement is not a lie. This enforcement will have consequences and it already had a few negative consequences for some people. If the "business" Internet access becomes unattractive, most companies can easily give up on it and concentrate on something else, it's their former customer that will have a problem then.

In an ideal world, there would be plenty of ISPs available everywhere you can just choose from and the competition would give us all low prices and high bandwidths. In an ideal world, we could vote by feet, we wouldn't need a law forcing neutrality, if we want neutrality and one ISP is not offering it, we go to its competitor who is, let's see how long an ISP can survive without any customers. Yeah, in an ideal world... just that the world is nowhere near as ideal. And the enforced Net Neutrality, for example, won't do anything to improve that situation, it will not change anything there (best case) or it will make it even worse for some people (worst case).

There cannot be light without shadow. And it's okay to accept some shadow. I just cannot stand it when people pretend that the shadow doesn't exist because they want to make their point of view to look even better than it actually is, despite the fact that they are already in the stronger position. It's okay to admit that a solution is not perfect, I mean, what is perfect anyway? Just my 2 cent.

In general I agree that Net Neutrality is a good thing, or let's put it the other way round: The fundamental lack of Net Neutrality would be a very bad thing. This way around makes more sense, as something that protects you from evil is not necessarily good; the enemy of your enemy is not your friend, just because you share some common interests.

1. Most people have the incorrect belief that the Internet has always been neutral until recent and now the big companies try to change that. The truth is: The Internet has never been neutral. The Internet, as we know it, which emerged from the ARPANET sometimes in the 80s, had no guarantee for neutrality in USA prior to February 26, 2015 when then FCC reclassified broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service. Prior to that date, the Internet may or may not have been more or less neutral as there was no regulation that would force ISPs to be neutral and traffic prioritization at Universities for example (the earliest civil Internet members of all) used to be the norm as bandwidth was scare and expensive at that time. In other parts of the world, the Internet may have always been neutral, never been neutral up to today, or not have been neutral until recently. The fact that despite the lack of any regulation in that area most people always had a rather neutral access in most parts of the western world shows that even without regulation the neutrality doesn't have to be in danger.

2. The consequence of (1) is that by forcing Net Neutrality upon the Internet means, the Internet as we used to know it from the 80s to 2015 won't be the Internet of the years to come. Forcing neutrality is not preserving the status quo, it is creating something new, it is a change. Or let's say it was a change in 2015, as since that day neutrality is the new status quo. Still, it's a pretty fresh change and change is not a synonym for improvement, it only means things will be different and different is no synonym for better. While I'm pretty sure the positive aspects outnumber the negative by far, I'm not neglecting that there might be negative aspects if neutrality is forced without any valid exceptions, e.g. increasing prices, loss of competition, or a decrease in capital investment. As for you the Internet is just a communication medium, but for the companies that keep it alive, it is business.

Keep in mind that use is not the same as abuse. If we'd forbid to sell anything that can be abused, some stores would be pretty empty. The opposite of neutrality is also not censorship. Censorship breaks neutrality but traffic prioritization does as well, just like selectively charging for traffic. I'm strictly against censorship and I'm strictly against any kind of market abuse and Net Neutrality fights both, but it's not a strict necessity to fight both.

All the negative aspects ISPs mention about Net Neutrality are actually true. The fact that most here would wish they were not or don't like to hear them doesn't make these claims false. Well, of course, they are exaggerating the situation a lot, they fear for their income, especially the loss of existing of future income sources, so there's also a lot of whining, take it with a grain of salt; but at its core the statements are not lies. This enforcement will have consequences and it already had a few negative consequences for some people. If the "business" Internet access becomes unattractive, most companies can easily give up on it and concentrate on something else, it's their former customer that will have a problem then.

In an ideal world, there would be plenty of ISPs available everywhere you can just choose from and the competition would give us all low prices and high bandwidths. In an ideal world, we could vote by feet, we wouldn't need a law forcing neutrality; if we desire neutrality and one ISP is not offering it, we go to a competitor. No ISP can survive without customers, so they would have become neutral if that is what customers demand. Yeah, in an ideal world... just that the world is nowhere near as ideal. And the enforced Net Neutrality, for example, won't do anything to improve that situation, it will not change anything there (best case) or it will make it even worse for some people (worst case).

There cannot be light without shadow. And it's okay to accept some shadow. I just cannot stand it when people pretend that the shadow doesn't exist because they want to make their point of view to look even better than it actually is, despite the fact that they are already in the stronger position. It's okay to admit that a solution is not perfect, I mean, what is perfect anyway? Just my 2 cent.