I strenuously disagree. "Net neutrality" is alarmism over nothing. The Internet did fine up until 2015 with no "net neutrality" regulations. The idea that ISPs are going to block web sites is utterly without foundation--it NEVER happened before the regulations went into effect, and any company that tried would be instantly pilloried and subject to mass cancellations.

There are legitimate reasons for ISPs to offer preferential treatment, for extra fees, to web sites, particularly those like Netflix that are huge users of bandwidth. "Net neutrality" sounds nice, but it's the camel's nose under the tent for government control. The Internet has grown exponentially in size and usefulness precisely because control has been so minimal. "Net neutrality" is a solution looking for a non-existent problem, and is far more likely to be harmful than beneficial.

If it truly were a situation of purely hypothetical problems, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. I hate unnecessary laws! Unfortunately, that doesn't quite seem to be the case. What about some of the past issues reported here?
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-violations-history/

Agree

@ElrondCT There is a lot of alarmism to be sure but I think its necessary. Will ISPs throttle streaming services to dial-up speeds the instant its repealed? No, but they'll be boiling the frog soon enough. Also, is it Netflix who's using the bandwidth or the end consumer who is paying for his allotted bandwidth? I expect my water utility to charge me based on the total amount used not on if I decided to drink it or water my garden with it.

Brian, thanks for the link. This actually supports my contention that no ISP has ever blocked a website, but clearly they have occasionally blocked applications, and in an era of ubiquitous apps, that's similar in seriousness. Yet at the same time, note that all of these issues were dealt with under pre-2015 rules, which is what the FCC is talking about returning to, and public outcry and/or FCC involvement forced the companies to back down. If these handful of items, all of which were eventually resolved in favor of freedom, are all that the advocates can come up with over 20 years of Internet life, I think my argument that this is a solution for a non-existent problem stands. I really don't understand why this has become such a cause celebre in a community that's generally more reluctant to embrace big government.

The idea that ISPs are going to block web sites is utterly without foundation--it NEVER happened before the regulations went into effect, and any company that tried would be instantly pilloried and subject to mass cancellations.

Boiling this down to just be about "blocking web sites" is an extreme generalization of the issues being discussed.

The examples Brian provided are small potatos (aside from the Comcast p2p) imo. This is about consumer protection.

Before 2015, (luckily for many consumers) regulators were already watching out for consumers being taken advantage of by cable operators. Thats why these types of lawsuits were filed:

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.pdf
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/141028attcmpt.pdf
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db1011/DOC-341621A1.pdf
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-342941A1.pdf

Those lawsuits were filed AFTER consumers were taken advantage of by ISPs. Throttling, tiering, hidden charges, unfair practices.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that left unregulated, ISPs have the consumers best interest in mind. If only the lessons learned from those old lawsuits could be used to enact rules for preventing this type of thing from occurring in advance.... hmmm.

I mentioned blocking web sites because that's what EE focused on. But where is any evidence that "Without it, sites like ours could be censored, slowed down, or forced to charge extra fees"? NONE. Is something like that theoretically possible? Yes. Is there any realistic likelihood of it happening, and not being immediately rolled back by customer protest? No. EE and other net-neut advocates are conjuring bogeymen. And complaining about hidden charges is confusing the issue--that's not a net-neut matter, but ordinary customer protection that other laws cover.

A couple of years ago, Consumer Reports magazine put out a sob story about some small business down South that depended on the Internet for its business and was afraid that without net-neut, they could be blocked and lose their customers. Anyone who really thinks ISPs are spending their time looking for small businesses to destroy is delusional. That business is far more at risk from Google changing its ad policies. I'm personally dealing with such an issue right now; Google has decided that advertising free software is a security risk, and even though I've provided certification that the free software is trial software for our own application, there are no hitchhiking apps, and we've been using Google for nearly 10 years, they've suspended my site from all Google advertising, severely limiting my ability to reach new customers. Net-neut doesn't help me in the slightest on this. Google scares me more than Comcast.

But where is any evidence that  "Without it, sites like ours could be censored, slowed down, or forced to charge extra fees"? NONE. Is something like that theoretically possible? Yes. Is there any realistic likelihood of it happening, and not being immediately rolled back by customer protest? No.

Above I linked to examples of broadband providers intentionally blocking their customers from using certain connections (while denying it), throttling them (in deceptive ways), deceptively billing them and favoring their own content services over other 3rd parties'.

Their own customers. People who generally have no other Internet option and even if they did wouldn't swallow ~$150 ETF, new equipment/activation fees, and a phone call with a retention specialist, in protest.

And you think they're unlikely to do the same thing to edge providers? They already are. Those fees will be passed on to the customer (you & I) and if the edge provider doesn't pay-to-play, then I guess we'll just sit here and watch the *buffering* that we paid our hard earned money to see.