For a good read on both sides of the issue that are historically informed and cogent, I'd recommend these two posts.

Anti (meaning in support of the FCC's plan):
https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/

Pro (meaning in support of the 2015 changes to protect net neutrality:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171127/01044438683/ajit-...

The anti article is by Ben Thomson, who has a deep and interesting insight into quite a number of things about how businesses on the internet work. I don't always agree with him, but he usually states a sane, informed case. His biggest claim to fame is his work fleshing out an economic idea called Aggregation Theory, which was in part a response to/criticism of Clayton Christinsen got wrong about New Market Disruption.

On the pro side, Mike Masnick is an intellectual property attorney who now, I think, runs techdirt full time. He's been working on the legal issues surrounding the internet since the 90s. Interestingly enough, his attitude was similar to Thompson's around 10 years ago, but the way things have evolved, he's come around to seeing things this way.

I find myself unconvinced by Thompson's argument. It's a wait and see argument that basically says, "We know regulation sucks. But we don't know exactly how bad the ISPs are going to be when they are unregulated."

The reality is that Internet Access is the defining technology that will drive the global economy for the next few generations at least. It's not unreasonable to compare it to access to coal, oil, or electricity (at different times in the last few hundred years) in terms of how it enables people and companies to create jobs as well as go about their daily business.

I don't think the electricity analogy is particularly good. It's oversimplified, and it doesn't exactly frighten anyone because no one can imagine anyone charging more for running one appliance rather than another. But it would improve that analogy a little if it went like this: you pay x amount for running your fridge if it's a Samsung smart fridge. You pay 10x if it's not.

I think a better way of explaining it is in a way that really resonates with people's pocket books. The price of gas. Imagine that gas stations charged variable rates depending on where you do your shopping, where you go for entertainment, or where you go to dinner because the companies that provide these things are allowed to subsidize your travel to them.

Want to buy your groceries at Super Walmart this week? Yay! Your gas is free! Oh, you want to go to the local farmer's market? Your gas is $10/gallon. Want to go see a movie at your local AMC GigaPlex 42 in 5D? 50 cents/gallon. You want to go see a small modern dance performance at your local community theater? $8/gal. Hey! Go eat at an Applebee's 40 miles from you. Getting there is free! And you can stop at any of these participating shopping malls along the way to pick up some clothes from Banana Republic. Oh, you want to go to a local diner run by some of your friends? Fuck you. Gas is going to be $50/gal for that.

Worst of all in this analogy is this: If you'd like to go vacation at a Disney resort, gas to get there is free no matter where you are. But wait, you'd like to go to the MOMA and look at art? Well, a lot of artists are pretty shady people. They do drugs and have sex. We're not selling you any gas at all for any price if you're going to drive there.

And to take it mildly political and back to technology, wait until news media companies get a chance to buy in. Do you want to live in a world where visiting Fox News is free and visiting nytimes.com costs 5 cents per click? (Or vice versa depending on your political leanings).

If we're somewhat concerned about the role that advertising and social media are playing in our political discourse now, just wait until you add traffic shaping through cost incentives into the mix.

Not having this regulation is the equivalent of letting a few companies create and OPEC-like cabal that sets the price of a vital resource for the U.S. and the U.S. only. In my opinion, it's a guaranteed disaster for our country economically, politically, and socially.

And by the way, I'm including examples of zero-rating here (making certain internet resources free) because I think that's a vital part of net neutrality. The rules put in place need to be strengthened, not eliminated to maintain a neutral internet service. I think Thompson's arguments on that point are way out of line.