There is only a single damn republican listed in the image in the OP. I can't say how annoying that is. I'll be damned if I ever vote republican again.
Ajit Pai needs to be removed from the FCC.
He needs to be set on fire.
I just want to post this to show people like me who need a simplified explanation to what the net neutrality is. (Yeah, I don't understand every little detail but keeping it simple makes more people notice a lot better why it's important.)
Awesome stuff.
As for the argument above for and against NN, the two viewpoints are fundamentally diametrically opposed, so it makes the middle ground extremely small and hard to reach. One is "trust the companies to do what is in your best interest, because it is in their best interest as well." But this has some serious flaws, in that companies, time and time again in America, have shown that they will, if at all possible, work against the people if they can make a quick buck. A good example of that is the current problem with pharma companies and the skyrocketing prices of generic medications. The other point of view is "we need government regulations because companies are scum and can't be trusted to be good, honest corporate citizens. This is also flawed because regulations create barriers to entry and make it that much harder for new entities to establish themselves in the market. This can be seen in the companies that want to make new generics to counter the generic monopoly that some companies have that allows them to charge such outrageous prices, but they can't because the requirements to manufacture medications for offer in the US is complex, difficult, and very expensive, and if they did all that work, there is no guarantee they will ever make their money back, so its an extremely risky business proposition.
In the end, there needs to be a compromise between the two point of view in order to establish a functional, working balance. So, there needs to be regulations, but it needs to be proportional to the value and risk of the service or product offered or produced, as well as having the lowest barrier to entry with the assurance that the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the government are protected. As such, the trick is just the right amount of regulation for a given area, which can be very hard to do. With regard to NN, both sides need to give a little to reach a good middle ground. The government should establish what constitutes a minimum level of service, and that ISP's aren't allowed to actively slow down or inhibit types of traffic across their networks, as long as it isn't illegal. The ISP's should be allowed to customize what services they can offer people, including prioritized access to certain services and types of traffic, as long as it doesn't cause anyone else's service to fall below that minimum established level. That should give everyone on both sides exactly what they want, certain guarantees that ISP's won't be allowed to adversely affect traffic for users across their networks, and the ISP's will still be allowed to offer additional services for those that are willing to pay more.
What do you guys think, reasonable compromise? Everybody gets something, and no one walks away empty handed.
However, in the end, if I'm forced to pick between the current two sides, which are trusting the companies, or government regulation, I have to go with government regulation. Lesser of two evils.