Right. And now Comcast can ALSO charge Comcast subscribers for access to Netflix. It’s win/win for the ISPs really. I’m surprised they haven’t already started doing it.
What’s the status of net neutrality in Europe?
What if a group of countries agrees on mutual neutrality, but also agrees to slow down any traffic to/from overseas servers that do NOT practice neutrality? 
That’s not what your cite says:
Quality is not speed.
In addition, the article says that Netflix offered the deal to many ISPs. Comcast is the only one who took them on up it, but only after cutting back on special privileges.
This is like the opposite of the fears of removing net neutrality. It destroys your case.
Historically, we have the net neutrality rules in place because of actual abuses. And this is an important point, because people think “well, my internet was usable before we had the 2015 net neutrality law, so how bad can it be not to have it,” but the biggest reason it was usable is that at the time, we had regulators who weren’t captured and government that actually governed instead of selling us all out wholesale to the highest bidder.
So given that they’re gone, we can look forward to more things like the following (credit for this list goes to poster Concern on Slashdot in December 2017):
[ul]
[li]2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it. [cnet.com][/li]
[li]2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services [eff.org] without notifying customers.[/li]
[li]2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked [fortune.com] because they didn’t like there was competition for their cellphones.[/li]
[li]2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. [wired.com] (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)[/li]
[li]2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet[businessinsider.com] because it competed with their bullshit. [searchengineland.com] edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace [savetheinternet.com][/li]
[li]2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android [washingtonpost.com] because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn’t do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)[/li]
[li]2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime [freepress.net] unless customers paid more money.[/li]
[li]2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place. [savetheinternet.com][/li][/ul]
So look for this and more coming down the pike for all of us, along with higher prices, poorer service, and more monitoring and tracking. Ooh, I feel it. Do you feel that?? That’s what making America GREAT again feels like! MAGA!
Cable isn’t a monopoly either. It is one of many ways to watch television and movies. Others include receiving a broadcast via antenna, satellite, a variety of streaming services, DVDs/Blurays, iTunes, Amazon, going to a movie theater…
Yes.
And I’m sure of it, because this isn’t a hypothetical.
I do lots of my shopping at Trader Joe’s, which does exactly what you described. They sometimes carry other brands, but almost always promote and replace them with their own brands quickly. And sometimes I don’t like the store brand as much as the one it replaced. But I still like Trader Joe’s, because on net it’s a great shopping experience. Part of the reason it’s a great shopping experience is that they use the lower costs of selling lots of house brands and simply not carrying many items to do things like hire more and friendlier employees and pay them better. There are tradeoffs, and eating their sub-par pickles (or driving elsewhere for the good ones) is one I’m willing to make.
I legitimately don’t believe that businesses have a duty to me to meet my preferences at the expense of their profitability.