There is a big problem that is directly tied to NN and that is, what is the point in everyone having equal access to internet content, if a substantial amount of people don't even have access to that content in the first place? Not to mention the large amount of people who do have 'high speed', yet these lower speeds are only good enough to stream content in such poor quality that it doesn't make it worth it for example.

NN makes sense if every single person has the option to pay for and use up to let's say a 1GB connection. Many won't need 1GB, and many won't be able to afford 1GB, but being able to purchase a worthwhile speed, that allows for a worthwhile amount of content, in a quality form, is what is needed before NN should be re-thought and/or re-implemented. 

I don't really think it's directly a political Dem vs Rep thing, but the fact that the cities voted blue for Hillary, and the country voted red for Trump, and it's the country that has major internet problems, does make it seem like it's strictly political. I think the truth is that the internet sucks in the country, so most of those people don't really care about NN because it really didn't do much for them in the first place, and they just happen to be Conservatives.

There is a reason why voting works quite well, and it's because everyone of legal voting age, has the same value and worth, and the outcome affects everyone in the end, one way or another. This is not the case with NN as long as people don't have equal internet content access. The answer isn't to get NN T2 back asap, it's to get everyone on an equal playing field in terms of speeds and reliability, or as equal as possible anyway, then figure out what makes sense when it comes to controlling the data flow.

The abolishment of net neutrality. Look how long it took them to innovate this plan. Thanks Obama.

As far as I understood the removal of Net Neutrality will lead to certain websites and services being preferentially treated and others that are not as mainstream will be disadvantaged. I guess this will have implications for people with small websites as those will load slower and it will possibly loose them money. Unless they will pay the ISPs some special fee. I guess gaming will be preferentially treated atleast if its a big game.

I would love this if I were an ISP CEO as this would mean directly more money in my pocket.

I doubt it will have negative effects soon for the public. They will take advantage of it very slowly so there is no public outcry. I would let the people forget about it and not do anything for 1-2 years.

Then I would slowly start charging all the services like Netflix and Amazon for guaranteed faster access at the expense of all the rest. They would pay hundreds of millions each year for that privilege. This would lead to higher subscription rates and higher costs for the consumer. Since the consumer has no choice they would have to accept the higher costs. Ofcourse they would have an advantage of stutter free high quality content.
But the people who dont use this type of services would be screwed. I would offer a special Internetaccess for double the price per month which is neutral and "boosts" all the services even the less mainstream ones. It actually doesnt boost but gives your own traffic back the status it once had before NN was removed.

I dont see how any of this can be good for the consumer. It will just cost the people more in the US and inconvenience them. The problem is giving more power to a handful of people that have a quasi monopoly position. And the only thing those people are interested in is maximizing profits.

I understand free market is important but in this area the free market can not work because the infrastructure belongs to 4-5 Companies which often have monopolies in certain areas.

So you want no laws or rights then?  

Good luck with that. Unless you start an anarchist government you'll get nowhere. Anarchy is only good for people who have a plan to take over, whether it be a foreign power or internal rebellion. Anarchy is transitional, not permanent. Go live in the the woods for "no gov" even though you'd still be a squatter in the eyes of the government. 

I want no laws, strictly speaking.  

Rights don't come from government.  I want all humans to enjoy all basic human rights.  The only thing that government does is infringe upon them.  

Right then.

So a bloke breaks in your home in your dead of sleep, shoots you - because hey, anyone can just buy a gun without a licence because no laws - and steals all your belongings.  Cause without a government, all those crimes are fair game.  At this point, you'd better hope your closest ER is within crawling distance.  Cause without a government, no taxes = no ambulance.  

If you want the wild west, that's what life would be like.  I don't think you want no laws, I think you want what everyone wants - big corporations to stop influencing laws.  I think you want the government to be honest and look out for everyone it governs over, instead of fitting whatever agenda their owners pay them to fit.  

Human rights are nice, but the flaw with "basic human rights" is the complexities of human interaction.  Courts lived by "human rights" for a long time and you know where it got them?  Beheadings, hangings, unfair trails, horrible jailing conditions, wrongful imprisonment, draconian prison sentences and the list goes on and on. 

A government doesn't exclusively define laws. Laws are defined by societal moral codes.  No laws means debaucherous self preservation, to the point where no moral value will exist.  You want the benefit of human rights, after saying you want a society without morals. It sounds like you're a bit misguided or you have poorly established your world view.

How do you plan on enforcing human rights without a government? Mob rule?

1. Just because not everyone uses the internet doesn't mean that we should give everyone that does the shaft.

2. Red opposes net neutrality, blue supports it. You can say it isn't a Dem vs Rep thing, but it clearly has become as much.

3. No, not everyone's vote matters as much as others. Look up gerrymandering.

1. This again is the same as voting. Everyone of legal age has the right to vote, yet many don't bother voting. Why? There are many reasons, but one of the most important reasons is because the candidates don't offer those people what they want, or those people don't believe their vote matters since many politicians don't follow through. This is the same as NN. There are many country people who aren't being offered what they want, or they assume with or without NN, they are screwed anyway, so why bother?

2. I've seen some red who are for NN, and some blue against. They are the minority, but it's not strictly politics. I can't say there is no connection whatsoever between them, because there is, that connection is indirect however. It's like some of the Liberals who voted for Trump. They didn't like Trump or the Republicans, they just couldn't stand for what was happening within the Democratic Party, so while the Conservatives won some voters over, it was indirect.

3. Well if your going to move the lines, then the people should be made aware of this, and if they are, they should pay attention, and should take into account how those lines are drawn and who drew those lines when voting. If this information isn't available to voters, then they need to fight for it to be made available. Truth is most people don't know and/or don't care and just listen to what comes out of a Politicians mouth. NN again has similarities to this. The ISP's have to follow the NN equality rules, and let all data through without hassle, yet the websites can ban, block, and do whatever they want in terms of who's content is seen on their site. You can't say your for NN if your website purposely blocks things it doesn't like, for whatever reason, just like how you can't say you believe and love America's laws and rights, then have your party draw some new lines that purposely favor your election. You can physically do this, but then once again, what's the point as far as the people are concerned?