'Net neutrality' good or bad for consumers? #tellusatoday

Last week, rules ensuring "net neutrality," the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally, were struck down. Comments from Twitter and Facebook are edited for clarity and grammar:

This ruling is terrible for consumers. With companies controlling the pipeline, you're basically selling the Internet to the highest bidder.

— @IsaiahReed

It's bad because it stifles competition.

— @Rboyd51

It is unambiguously conspicuous that undermining net neutrality will impose unfair regulations for consumers.

— @OsuborMatt

Striking down net neutrality is a win for consumers. You get what you pay for. If you want a premium service, you pay for it. If an Internet service provider (ISP) has a new service, it can charge the people who use it more.

Consumers don't invest much in Internet hardware beyond their new modems. They don't invest in new infrastructure, cables, switchgear, load balancing or anything else that keeps the Internet up. Yet they seem to be demanding that they be the ones to dictate limits on its development. Why ?

— Dave Cawdell

This development is potentially bad. There's not enough information at this time. We have to wait until the first corporation implements negative effects.

— @karnuj

Do we allow "gatekeepers" cartel-like power over information because they took the risk of making the information highway possible? The answer seems to be, "Yes, they earned it." But, if we allow this, we end up with a cable-TV setup over all information.

— Jerry Geiger

Not all data traffic is created equal, nor should it be treated equally. Emergency 911 traffic has more priority than some kid's movie download.

The people equipped to monitor it in real time and make adjustments as necessary to keep it running are over at your ISP, not in Washington.

— Don Barr

For more discussions, follow @USATOpinion or #tellusatoday on Twitter.