In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Net neutrality simply means the people who sell
you access can't control how you use it. Period.
It doesn't mean the gov't owns the wires or the
websites. Just as the phone company can't put
ads in your phone call or downgrade the transmission
to competing companies. There's net neutrality for
phones, and that just means you can call anyone
you like. It doesn't mean you can only call gov't
propaganda sources.

that part is (mostly) true.

A lot of people are trying to get to own the
whole thing before the dust has settled. Microsoft,
Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon... They're all
examples of small-minded people who see a new
world coming and want to own it. Actually they want
to own you. Just as AOL managed to do for awhile.
But people don't complain about that because they
think they've chosen to spend their days diddling
Facebook or iPhone apps.

that part is complete bull****.

No net neutrality would mean those companies
have to make deals with the likes of Comcast and
Verizon, because your ISP would be deciding what
you can access. That's why the tech companies are
for net neutrality. But at least with them you still
have some choice.

no, that's not why.

those companies are for net neutrality because they understand how
important it is, and unlike idjit pai, they don't have a vested
interest in the telecom companies.

What about things like wikipedia and craigslist in
a world without net neutrality -- the people who are
trying to do something useful for the public? They're
at risk now because of the walled garden strategies
of the big tech companies. Without net neutrality
they'll be gone altogether, for the simple reason that
they're not profit-oriented.

no. the reason they would be gone is because they won't be able to
afford additional fees.