Why do the telecom giants (FCC) want to kill it so bad then? I am genuinely curious. If nothing really has changed with net neutrality and the same protections were already there before it, on the flip side they shouldn't really care if it exists or not either.
Is it that they don't like the constant government monitor that doesn't need a room full of lawyers to challenge them? The old way it seemed easier for them to squash the little guy with regulation? (I admit ignorance in this area, this is just speculation)
The argument should not be over simplified, but I know one thing: I don't trust big telecom. If they hate something as much as they seem to hate net nuetrality; injecting cronies into key positions (Pai and others), fighting this hard to repeal it. Why?
Good points, so I looked it up. And it wasn't throttling. It was Netflix getting too big for Comcast to handle and Comcast didn't feel like making special arrangements in their networks for free. They specifically mention NN and point out why that wasn't a NN issue - go read it and scroll down to the section on NN. Basically - Netflix was using more data than Comcast was capable of delivering.
And that's how this all got started. Video streaming got big around 2013 and 2014 and Netflix was requiring more and more bandwidth until finally in 2014 we got the issue mentioned above. Comcast told Netflix 'If you want to use all this bandwidth, you have to pay us to do all the work to expand- since it's only for your service.' Netflix said 'No way - you're supposed to provide your customers with fast internet.' And they had a little standoff. In the end 2 things happened
1) Netflix paid Comcast some money to give them special treatment (not NN at all) because Netflix is 100% download and Comcast was allocating ports for uploads (which isn't needed for Netflix) and
2) Netflix and Google (aka Youtube - who also streams a lot of data and is the #1 tech democratic donor) took their lobbyists to Washington and told Obama about it. Obama tried to make ISPs (like Comcast) fall in line, but his orders got stopped in the courts because the govt isn't allowed to just tell people and companies how to run their business.
3) Then they had a great idea - if we classify the internet as a Utility then the rules about having to provide everyone equal service will automatically apply. We'll sell it as Net Neutrality and it'll sound great! And that's what they did. Just like when Obamacare got sued they called the penalty for not buying insurance a 'tax'. Change the way it's classified and you can change the rules for it.
Results: Netflix and Google and other content provide don't have to pay to make sure their stuff gets through as fast as everyone else's. It's like mailing a semi-truck full of stuff for the price of a small flat-rate box because there's a rule that says 'Everything ships for $10'
ISPs get the shaft and have to make sure everything runs equally. Does it matter for your bill? Probably not - Netflix is cheap, but internet is expensive. The problem is Netflix has competition and Comcast doesn't. Making it more expensive to be an ISP doesn't help more companies get into the business.
Note though - None of the NN rules started because of throttling. It was a giant bottle of snake-oil: a solution to a problem we didn't have because the tech lobbyists had Obama's ear. There's no reason for it. If you want to say you don't care and you're glad the internet is regulated as a 1930's phone company - that's fine. But know that Obama sold it dishonestly, and it has no benefit. (I googled 'Benefits of Title II' and I got hits for social security. I googled 'effects of title II' and I got arguments about whether NN is harmful or not'. Shouldn't there be some benefits out there?)