[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes most of the fees are phone, TV, and local government related, for now. The two biggest are ESPN and "local sports", neither of which I ever use. I don't want to see any more added internet. Sam Knows reports to me every month my daily up, down, lost, latency, etc, performance which is pretty good. I don't think I need 4K, no need to be able to distinguish each hair on the areola.

I think you're right about not blocking individual sites... yet, otherwise half the dark net, and much of the deep net would have disappeared. But net neutrality would prevent that in the future, keeping the pipes open to all, not just those who could pay.

OK, you can make a virtual network network to provide me reddit for a buck. What does that do for somebody in bumfuck ME, or KS or AK? Of course that's a buck on top of paying my ISP for most everything else. Or are you saying you can give me the whole net for a buck and the IPSs can't stop it from being available to you?

It seems to me net neutrality is not about a bogeyman but rather blocking a bunch of potential bogeymen. The warnings I hear are a shotgun of possibilities alerting people of consequences they haven't thought of so think well fuck it I'm not affected.
An awful lot of tech smart people are concerned about this but that may be about protecting the status quo. I don't know, but can't see how it can hurt.

I don't understand how classifying ISPs a utility affects or interferes with the FCC's role in allocating frequencies, either. We saw with the telephone how the FCC saved us a fortune with their interference in something they weren't created for originally. We've also seen an end run with the phone service which has caused these ISP monopolies. The FCC should be flexible enough and powerful enough to slow the ass-fucking of the people.