When the internet WASN'T neutral, companies like Facebook, Instagram, Google, and Twitter grew exponentially.... and they love it at the top.
These companies are powered by YOU, the individual, they are not "free". If you are not paying for something, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Netflix, etc., benefit from having all of your information readily available to advertisers. They have your age, race, location, gender, interests... they know when you're online and when you're not.
We tell them everything! All of this information is very valuable to marketers/advertisers who are trying to reach a particular target audience. "Selling" this information has made those who benefit from net neutrality very rich and has changed the marketing world.
Content providers DO NOT LIKE SHARING... Facebook purchased Instagram and WhatsApp, Google purchased YouTube, and Twitter purchased Vine... and then killed it! They all want total control.
These massive content providers have benefited tremendously from the open internet, and the larger they get, the more they can monopolize the internet. As of now, there is no extra "shipping and handling" tax that these large companies have to pay to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for delivering their content.
We pay for this already, if we want faster internet, we pay for it, simple as that. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulating the internet would require these MASSIVE content providers to pay more (just like YOU do) to Internet Service Providers (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Spectrum) if they want to ensure that their content gets delivered quickly.
These would leave content providers with 2 options.... pass that charge on to YOU, or pay it themselves. So when you see things on Twitter like this...
This is under the assumption that all of these sites will pass that cost on to YOU rather than pay it themselves. They want YOU to pay for the "shipping & handling" of their content. These companies don't want to pay that extra amount if ISP's begin regulating the speed of the sites.
Just to put things into perspective, this website you're reading right now (www.through2eyes.com) wouldn't be affected at all. I'm not streaming large quantities of content, you're not required to "sign-up" or "register" to read anything, you don't have to give any information.
When it comes to TV and radio, they all have to pay substantial amounts for the delivery of their content, this is why is it costs more for SiriusXM Radio. Also, why it costs more for HBO, Showtime, STARZ, etc. Public radio is free, and just as there are basic cable packages, there would also be basic internet packages.
Remember, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT, the FCC is essentially saying that if content providers want to profit from having all of that information, it's going to cost. It's also about MONEY, of course, the ISP's want a piece of the pie and the FCC thinks they should get it.
The question is, if (GIGANTIC IF) Net Neutrality actually does get repealed, will Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter, continue to reap such large profits from the access to our information?
If they don't, they will most likely pass the regulatory cost on down to the consumer. Then YOU have to decide if YOU want to pay for Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc., to have access to YOU. They should really be paying us!
I tried to keep this short, but the more I educate myself on this, the more complex it becomes. If you want to engage or present a counter argument please leave a comment below.