From section II. Executive Summary, #8, the FCC wrote:
Threats to Internet openness remain today. The record reflects that broadband providers hold all the tools necessary to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don't like. The 2010 rules helped to deter such conduct while they were in effect. But, as Verizon frankly told the court at oral argument, but for the 2010 rules, it would be exploring agreements to charge certain content providers for priority service. Indeed, the wireless industry had a well-established record of trying to keep applications within a carrier-controlled “walled garden” in the early days of mobile applications.
This is very dishonest and disingenuous by the FCC. Sure broadband providers hold all the tools necessary to “disfavor the content they don’t like”. As do cable providers, satellite companies…blogs, Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, Instagram accounts, Reddits, Diggs, radio stations, TV stations, music halls, movie theaters, football stadiums, public libraries, churches, schools, even the town square. EVERYONE who controls a venue has that kind of power at the fingertips. And guess what: they all use it! All of them!! Even public schools, public libraries, town squares, sidewalks, streets, national parks, the U.S. Senate floor. NONE of these places allow 100% unfettered access WITHIN THEIR VENUES to say or publish whatever content you want. NONE of them!
And just like a coaxial cable line coming into your house, a broadband provides Internet access to you over their own private property, private network lines, private routers, switches, data centers, management hubs, employee labor, etc. They own these things. THEY PAY FOR THEM. So of course they should have the rights do decide what content flows through them! And they turn around and charge you as their customer to use their services. If you don’t like it, find another ISP. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them. Every single square inch of the United States is covered by 1 or more Internet Service Providers. Everywhere.
For the FCC to say that a broadband provider shouldn’t have the rights to disallow certain types of content through their private property, that’s exactly the same as REQUIRING cable companies to carry every single channel in the entire world, regardless of whether they have a contract with that content provider or not AND regardless of the nature of the content. So the FCC, using the rules akin to Net Neutrality, world force Time-Warner Cable to carry a Nazi-propaganda channel piped out of Austria right into your living room or an ISIS channel that depicts the daily beheadings of Syrian Christians.
But no! The Internet will be slowly deteriorated by Net Neutrality as it seeks to quash the profits and legitimate business practices of Internet Service Providers. As the number of ISPs dwindle over the next decade, your speed, reliability, and price of Internet access will suffer. I promise you this.
Net Neutrality is bad for the Internet, bad for consumers, bad for Americans, bad for Internet Service Providers, bad for the economy, bad for our freedoms, and bad for the future of the United States.