[0xfeba]

Think of it like your cable company, Mime Warmer, also happens to own a broadcasting company called DEF. You pay Mime Warmer $100/month to access every cable channel that exists. The DEF channels come in 4K. Now, because there's no cable company regulation, non-DEF channels only go up to 480p unless you pay an extra $10/month per channel you want in $4k.

The problem with this analogy is that cable already comes in packages. The key here is that you already pay for the access to all channels. But all of the sudden they see a new revenue stream in restricting access to promote their own properties.

So, it's not the internet that is being regulated: It's ISPs (Net Neutrality is the wrong word to use). You already pay for internet access, so does Netflix. Why all of the sudden would you want to let ISPs charge more for what you are already paying for?

And opponents (Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, et al.) all say they totally support NN, but oh, they don't want to be forced to obide by it for "reasons". And there are already examples of ISPs (Verizon, namely) throttling others or exempting their traffic (from data charges). Lawmaker opponents keep claiming it's "regulating the internet", but it's not -- it's regulating ISPs since they have mono/duo-polies.