If the FCC’s decision to end net neutrality stands, American consumers are likely to experience some websites not loading as fast as others, some websites blocked and no longer accessible, and even some email services deliver instantly and others less fast.
If anyone thinks this is not realistic, all one has to do is look at China. In China certain websites are simply not accessible. Content is censored and certain content is not accessible. Net neutrality is part of the free world. The absence of net neutrality is the hallmark of dictatorships.
It is of little comfort that it is not government but large corporations who will be able to determine the speeds and who is accessible by the Internet. ATT or other ISP’s could block Fox or MSNBC from its service or supply one at a lower speed then the other.
In Trumpland the CDC is not allowed to use certain words. In a similar manner, it is possible that corporate America may find it is in it’s best interest to be identified or not to be identified with a political view by blocking an opposing views website. At a minimum, in the absence of net neutrality corporations will increase what they charge and will slow down and block certain content. India’s regulator of the internet said he needed to protect net neutrality because he didn’t want a market “where poor people get some sort of diet version of the internet, what the telecommunication companies allow, and the richer people get fuller internet that’s faster.”
Net neutrality is the hallmark of a free society. If ISP corporations can determine by blocking, slowing down speed, or by pricing, what is available on the internet society is less free. It’s that simple.