Opinion of Net Neutrality

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The thing is, someone needs to pay for bandwidth.  If not content providers, it will have to be content consumers.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If Comcast is going to build the infrastructure, it needs to be able to make it from someone.  If it is not to be from content providers, it has to come from content consumers.  However, understandably content consumers aren't going to willingly pay more in advance of seeing a need, which they won't until they actually need it.  The problem is that Comcast and other providers promised a speed that could be maintained with their current infrastructure if and only if there were only a few heavy users.  The advent of streaming has upset that model.

The thing is, someone needs to pay for bandwidth.  If not content providers, it will have to be content consumers.

You mean consumers might have to pay ISPs for internet connections?

And that if they start using more bandwidth, they'll have to pay more.  I'm old enough to remember when ISPs charged everyone by the amount of data used and not just by the maximum speed possible.  Given the changed dynamics of internet usage, they have the problem of having promised a maximum speed assuming that few users would be making constant use of that maximum.  Getting people to pay more for the same maximum speed is not likely even if it does provide more total throughput.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If Comcast is going to build the infrastructure, it needs to be able to make it from someone.

Comcast didn't even build that infrastructure on its own. It relies heavily on government subsidies and special government access rights to build its network. Many communities have been wired on a 1:1 match. And yet, Comcast wants exclusive say over how that partially public-funded network, run over public utility poles, is used.

If Comcast cannot keep up with building infrastructure and still make a profit, then it has no business being in the industry. This isn't anything more than an above-and-beyond cash grab.

$200 billion of taxpayer dollars went to pay for broadband in the 1990s.
Cable internet is typically $60-$100 a month these days.
And then Comcast and the like want to have the Internet paid for a 3rd time by the content providers like Netflix.
We the people already paid for it twice.

Moderate's comments make more sense than yours, tho not by much since apparently those governments were dumb enough to give money without securing any ownership stake.

But "We the people already paid for it twice" is like complaining about the expense of adding lanes to an interstate when traffic increases because we already paid to build the initial interstate.  Now I'm fairly neutral about how we pay for the extra bandwidth, but someone is going to have to or it won't get built.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That would be true if the first time, the money went to build an 8 lane Interstate and the Oregon trail got built instead.

Compared to what came before, it was an 8 lane interstate,  I doubt that there are many here who remember when a 2.4Kbps was a high speed home computer connection.