Your ISP should be no respecter of websites.

That's the basic premise, that your ISP should simply give you access to the internet and be blind to whatever websites you are using.


The main problems that made this issue arise: Some ISP's slowed down access to certain websites that were either high density data sites (streaming videos, for example), or the ISP had a competing website. Obviously nobody wants access to a favored website intentionally slowed down. It tends to frustrate people.

Of course, if that were the end of it and all the FCC was being given the authority to do was to declare that ISP's must give equal access to the entire internet, everyone should be fore net neutrality. The Left would have you believe the issue is really this simple. It's not.



Say I am the owner of a streaming website. Say I want to get ahead of my competition by making my website run smoother. Say I can do this by locating servers at respective ISP's all across the US. Now, I would need to pay the ISP's an extra fee to do this, as they are now housing some of my equipment. This is already being done. Net Neutrality, as currently written, would make this illegal, as ISP's now respect my website over others.

Since I couldn't do that under net neutrality, I wouldn't do it. So, where does that leave you, the user of my website? It leaves you at home dealing with a streaming service that's not as smooth as it could be.



Net neutrality is a good ideal to ensure the free flow of ideas on the internet. In practice, it would cause headaches even while it prevents the abuse listed earlier in this thread.