So much Sturm und Drang here on HN when NN was repealed... 2 years later, how many people's business or personal computer use been significantly affected?
Net neutrality isn't about impact to personal computer use - it's about incentives to the ecosystem. It's about the viability of businesses like Netflix and new competitors thereto. You shouldn't expect to see an immediate impact, but you should expect to see new companies starting or not starting, existing companies deciding new ventures are viable or not viable, etc.
It's like saying, "We shut down all military recruiting two years ago, has anyone been attacked by an invader?" Not yet, but there's probably been a few conflicts we didn't get involved in that we otherwise would have (which could be good or bad, to be clear!), which can have significant effects on the world in many more years. And in ten years or so there probably will be some people thinking about invading.
> It's about the viability of businesses like Netflix and new competitors thereto.
Why should the ISPs be forced to bankroll Netflix (or other startups) infrastructure? It's a different company making a business decision to suddenly massively increase their use of the ISPs networks. If the ISP is forced to both not block the traffic, and also not able to charge the provider for access, then I don't understand why you think that's ok. What makes Netflix a more moral company than the ISP that Netflix's business is more important than the ISPs?
I'm not saying (in this comment) that they should or shouldn't, only that this is the argument for net neutrality. This is why I picked an analogy about the military: whether you're a hawk or a dove, you should argue your position based on the anticipated effects of well over two years of your policy.
