It's important to note that before 2015, there was no "net neutrality." And things seemed to be ok. There's already laws on the books that would prevent, for example, Comcast from trying to block Netflix in favor of their own streaming services. Indeed, companies have been slapped with fines on this in the past.

It's also important to note that although people are saying it's going to hurt the little companies, ask yourself this: If that's true, why are companies like Google, Netflix, and Facebook arguing in FAVOR of this regulation? Could it possibly be to protect their business? Or maybe they're just being altruistic with their shareholder money. You choose.

It's also really curious to me that everyone is up in arms over this regulation, yet nobody cares that Facebook and Google are ALREADY limiting what you can see. It's been proven with research that if something winds up on the 2nd or 3rd page of a Google search, almost nobody looks at it. Why is it ok for Google to block sites it doesn't want you to see (like RT), and nobody is batting an eyelash?

Based on what I'm seeing here, I suspect I might get my first downvotes, which is disappointing, but what can you do?

Then can you explain how the FCC was able to step in and fine ISPs for this behavior before the Net Neutrality regulation was put into effect in 2015? For example:
https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-voip-calls/

There are already laws on the books that cover anti-competitive stuff. Removing some regulation that was enacted only two years ago is hardly going to be the collapse of the Internet as we know it. In fact, I doubt you'll even see a difference whether it stays or goes.

In theory, sure. In principle, no. People get their news from social media and their search results from the first couple of hits on Google. Yeah, there's some outliers, but by and large, that's the fact.

Umm, they fined the company $15,000... My point is the net neutrality regulation, which was not in place prior to 2015, is not needed because we already have rules and laws preventing a lot of this stuff that people are concerned about. It will have practically no impact on anybody.

Donated $15k? You're kidding me, right? If the FCC had no teeth because there was no net neutrality, why did they donate $15k to the FCC?

Rhetorical question. We can agree to disagree here.

Bad example. Your city throttles your water usage -- I can't water my lawn half the month. Electric companies throttle electricity usage - they're called brownouts, happen a lot in California and during hot weather when everyone wants to use their AC. Electric companies even give you a discount if you let them remotely turn your AC off during specific times of the day.

I'm not making an analogy, I'm just responding to yours! You said: " You open your tap and expect water. You turn on a lamp and you expect a light," and I simply countered that it isn't true -- if you're in a brownout, you turn on a lamp, you won't get any light. If I turn on my sprinkler when I'm not supposed to, I get a progressively larger fine from the city. That's not about usage, it's about access -- I'm not allowed to access my water on certain days and I can't access my electricity at certain times. (well, I've never lived in a brownout area, so that's never hit me before). It's about access AND usage.

That made me laugh.

Can you show a case where an ISP was blocking an online payment service? Because I've never heard of such a thing, and I'm not aware of a single ISP that owns a payment service company either.

There was already an exception in the current net neutrality rules carved out for copyright violations, so nothing changes from that perspective.