> I think people argue that without net neutrality, we didn't see much negative impact. Except that it is not always about what is happening, but what could hap

> I think people argue that without net neutrality, we didn't see much negative impact. Except that it is not always about what is happening, but what could happen. This can be useful if at some point the internet providers started to collude or think about changing the status quo. This is a very good point - but one that applies equally to the FCC. Per the dissent[1] linked by ChrisArchitect in a sibling thread (which, while written from a rather biased and slightly inflammatory perspective, makes very good arguments), the FCC is not voting to implement net neutrality, but to give itself more power, with the promise of only using it to implement net neutrality - which, as we know from our experiences granting powers to individuals, companies, and government agencies alike, never actually happens. I believe that net neutrality is something that is 100% good for consumers with no downsides for them, and opposed only by companies that want to charge extra for prioritizing traffic. However, I think we should be very careful about what powers we give to federal agencies to regulate and control private industry. Targeted regulation is good, wide-ranging powers granted indiscriminately are bad. [1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401639A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401639A1.pdf