Are you for or against Net Neutrality?

SN Greg Wright I am a firm believer in net neutrality. The internet should be an open platform. I especially believe the Internet Service Providers should be classed as utilities and that franchise agreements, or the ides of a "natural monopoly", with cities should go away. I find it ludicrous when I read stories about people who can't get broadband from their "City's Provider" unless they want to pay thousands of dollars. Even when their neighbors across the street have the broadband that they are trying to get. I also believe that if Comcast, AT&T, Charter, etc.. will not provide broadband for an area or a city, the people affected should be able to build their own network. Finally, I find it funny that I live in a supposed "Third World" country, but I have 4 choices for broadband that all compete for my business. This competition keeps costs down, speeds up, and customer service good. Why? They do not want to lose your business. For example, I pay $35 a month for 200Mb down with no data cap, and I was just told that they are raising my speed to 300Mb down next month without a rate increase. Why? COMPETITION!

Lets look at what people are saying:
*** https://vittana.org/13-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality
*** https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-net-neutrality-debate-in-2-minutes-or-less/
*** https://www.quora.com/Is-net-neutrality-a-good-idea-or-a-bad-idea-What-are-the-pros-and-cons
*** https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/john-gallagher/2017/12/15/net-neutrality-vote-fcc/952805001/
*** https://netivist.org/debate/net-neutrality-pros-and-cons

So here is the deal! What if some person at Goggle was a graduate of the University of Southern California and they had a co-worker with whom they were upset. In the heat of their anger they had the keys to the "speed gate" and slowed down everyone's access in Alabama to content an especially those attending classes online at the University of Alabama, but that person somehow was able to give increased speed and access to students attending USC. Is that fair, that ONE person can have that much control and abuse the 1st Amendment.

What is an 11th grade student had to do research requiring them to contrast and compare to opposing views. How is that student suppose to get their work done, if some notices they are looking a lot of, lets say "bad sites" and then they look at say "good websites". What if that gate keeper is able to pick and chose filters for speed or content and the kid, just trying to get their paper do, which could have been done in a couple of hours not takes then 3 days because of access and speed, all because some person they don't know can pick and choose how they access and at what speed they access content on the net.

Frankly, what we need is a 2nd 1st Amendment for the Internet age that address freedom of access just as the 1st Amendment - "free speech". I also don't frankly don't care if or how a person / company makes a "legal" buck, but I do care when that same person / company either impedes my ability to make a "legal" buck just because they can because they use the tactics of the weak, wanting to bully people in to submission, or the support rules that give them advantage in order to suppress another's opportunities. I think they use to call that - slavery!

Lets see, it was Hitler, I believe who curbed free speech and bent minds in Germany that resulted in over 12 million total deaths. Our was it Stalin and Mao with their brutality and the silencing or a best control of media to force their people to think a certain way. I don't invoke these evil beings lightly. But, the free and unfettered exchange of ideas must be open and a free people be trained on NOT "what to think" but instructed in the practice of "how to think" the processes for critical thinking so they can determine the wheat from the chaff.

I will not be a slave to another, nor will I suffer slavery to be imposed on another.

Just my thoughts!