All posters here forget that its the users that are paying the ISPs. And the fees are not cheap. Net neutrality are not fair to a lot of users in this respect. Netflix users half of the network traffic. But its subscribers are less than half of the internet population. So a lot of users don't use Netflix. In fact many of them use very little net traffic. Yet they are paying the same fees to ISPs. If the ISPs can force heavy traffic web sites to pay more fees, they can lower the fees to the poor users. And that should enable more people to get online. So the people opposing the new ruling is simply selfish.
Nonsense. When you use Netflix at home, you're also paying your ISP (often a hefty figure per month). Your ISP then covers its costs in moving the Netflix data with your and their other customers payments. As do the other ISPs.
You have reading problem. I do not use Netflix. I am paying the same heavy fee to the ISP as you that watch movie through internet for your own enjoyment. Is that fair?
So with that argument then if you drive up and down the highway to go to work every day and I only use it once a month does that mean I should pay less taxes to look after that road? Or is it about having access to the road equally?
All posters here forget that its the users that are paying the ISPs. And the fees are not cheap. Net neutrality are not fair to a lot of users in this respect. Netflix users half of the network traffic. But its subscribers are less than half of the internet population. So a lot of users don't use Netflix. In fact many of them use very little net traffic. Yet they are paying the same fees to ISPs. If the ISPs can force heavy traffic web sites to pay more fees, they can lower the fees to the poor users. And that should enable more people to get online. So the people opposing the new ruling is simply selfish.
Nonsense. When you use Netflix at home, you're also paying your ISP (often a hefty figure per month). Your ISP then covers its costs in moving the Netflix data with your and their other customers payments. As do the other ISPs.
You have reading problem. I do not use Netflix. I am paying the same heavy fee to the ISP as you that watch movie through internet for your own enjoyment. Is that fair?
Net neutrality isnt fair. It is all about greedy people trying to grt others to pay for the services they use.
What needs to happen is to have users pay for the bits transmitted. Effectively it is equivalent to paying for phone calls by the minute. This way heavy users would be paying their fair share and rightfully suffering for excessive use.
I guess you haven't noticed that as telecommunications costs have dropped, most telephone service is now unlimited nationwide talk (and text). This is similar. There are fixed costs for infrastructure, but the incremental cost for actually transmitting data is minimal.
...it's about treating all bits equally and not being able to charge more for bits from targeted websites/publishers.
It’s not about that at all. The FCC held ISPs accountable under the Open Internet Rules (no throttling, no blocking, no paid-prioritization) long before your “net neutrality” push. “Net neutrality” came about as a result of the government refusing to let the FCC do that UNLESS they also forced ISPs to get broadcast licenses (revocable by the government at any time for any reason). “Net neutrality” is totally unnecessary in the enforcement of “treating all bits equally.”
...it's about treating all bits equally and not being able to charge more for bits from targeted websites/publishers.
It’s not about that at all. The FCC held ISPs accountable under the Open Internet Rules (no throttling, no blocking, no paid-prioritization) long before your “net neutrality” push. “Net neutrality” came about as a result of the government refusing to let the FCC do that UNLESS they also forced ISPs to get broadcast licenses (revocable by the government at any time for any reason). “Net neutrality” is totally unnecessary in the enforcement of “treating all bits equally.”
...it's about treating all bits equally and not being able to charge more for bits from targeted websites/publishers.
It’s not about that at all. The FCC held ISPs accountable under the Open Internet Rules (no throttling, no blocking, no paid-prioritization) long before your “net neutrality” push. “Net neutrality” came about as a result of the government refusing to let the FCC do that UNLESS they also forced ISPs to get broadcast licenses (revocable by the government at any time for any reason). “Net neutrality” is totally unnecessary in the enforcement of “treating all bits equally.”
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Open Internet Order, the legal failings of which caused the 2015 net neutrality rules that got passed. The FCC lost a very big case vs Verizon on the basis that ISPs were "information services" and not "communication services" (which have different governing bodies). Therefore, the FCC sought to reclassify the ISPs (as is their job) under title II so that they could then actually enforce the rules proposed in the Open Internet Order. That's how this all started.
So what is being claimed is patently false. The Open Internet Order only functioned via the honor system, and when that honor system was betrayed, enforcement failed when put under legal pressure. That's why Net Neutrality is even something we're even talking about.
The FCC lost a very big case vs Verizon on the basis that ISPs were "information services" and not "communication services" (which have different governing bodies).
Correct; the classification difference between Title I and Title II (requiring broadcast licenses). Equality of bits is fully capable of being enforced without BL regulation over ISPs.
The Open Internet Order only functioned via the honor system, and when that honor system was betrayed, enforcement failed when put under legal pressure.
The problem, unfortunately, is that “legal pressure” is the equivalent of the honor system these days. Honored, of course, for everyone but “you and yours” (meaning a given government/governmental body and its current band of financial supporters/lobbyists). It’s ironic, but what we really need is civilian authoritarianism over government operation.
The Open Internet Rule makes sure that the internet, the most important network of the 21st century, is open and available to everybody, and not controlled by a handful of companies.
More than half of American consumers don’t have a choice when signing up for internet service, allowing monopolists to make the rules.
The Open Internet Rule, as it currently stands, ensures that there is oversight in the internet marketplace.
What an odd pairing of statements (though there’s likely a reason they were listed together), seeing as “net neutrality” never changed anything regarding local monopolization of ISP service…
There are four companies, cable and telephone, that provide three-quarters of the access to the internet for American consumers, and they would prefer to be unregulated.
So let’s fix that by breaking them up, a la Ma Bell. Oh, wait, no, the government’s paid off to not do that… But notice, again, the point that is listed immediately after.
The Open Internet Rule is the law of the land that protects consumers. If Congress or the Trump administration’s FCC eliminate the rule, consumers will lose their current protections.
Protects? From what? Not from monopolistic behaviors. They literally just admitted that there are only four companies which provide 75% of access, so “net neutrality” sure as fuck didn’t protect from that. Similarly, requiring a broadcast license for radio and television didn’t stop the industry from consolidating in its entirety down to only FIVE COMPANIES. But see, they didn’t enumerate the protections. They just listed “protects” right after telling people about the big bad companies. Cognitive bias is hell on people.
Without the Open Internet Rule, cable and phone companies will pick what you see, what you pay, and what you have to pay extra for.
Unlike with the rule*, where just Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, (etc.) pick what you see.
Congress plays an important role in the oversight of the FCC and in how the internet is regulated. The Open Internet Rule has been successful in protecting consumers, in stimulating innovation, and in providing good returns for those who provide internet service. If it isn’t broken, it doesn’t need to be fixed.
1. Perhaps they could expound on the role? 2. Perhaps they could explain the ways in which it has been successful? 3. Perhaps they could refrain from using tired platitudes in lieu of explanation? Particularly when such platitudes are never accepted in defense of the Constitution.
The language used on the page bothers me. I don’t much like activist .edu addresses… Something about that sits poorly. Probably because it’s vaguely related to the findings of the Dodd Report.
Internet freedom remains a significant challenge around the world. Highly restrictive countries, such as China and Iran, block residents from accessing search engines, social networks, and news organizations. The U.S. has previously supported the rights of all internet users to freedom of expression, assembly, and association online.
They should have no trouble supporting Paul Nehlen in his bid for Congress, then. Ah, but wait. They’re nonprofit, so they can’t support him. Thanks, Lyndon Johnson!
Correct; the classification difference between Title I and Title II (requiring broadcast licenses). Equality of bits is fully capable of being enforced without BL regulation over ISPs.
The Verizon lawsuit empirically proved that it's not -- at least not via the FCC. I posted this in another thread, but the easiest fix to the problem as a whole is to regulate under title II so the FCC has all the power it needs to do everything it needs.That absolutely comes with some baggage, yes. And while Title II isn't the technically correct answer, the "technically correct" fix is rife with enough additional problems and complexities it makes it not only a worse overall solution, but also almost completely politically unfeasible.
The FTC does what it can where it can, but it doesn't have the power to address all of the concerns. The way that it defines and enforces 'unfairness', for example, would still allow telecommunication companies to create fast and slow lanes, as well as selectively block services so long as they are counter-balanced with other 'benefits'. That is not equality of bits. The FTC is not equipped to govern a 'fair' internet. They are more than happy to tell you that they are, because that means more potential funding and expanded powers for them, but it's not the truth. It's a mess. Governing everything under Title II by far makes the most sense.
The problem, unfortunately, is that “legal pressure” is the equivalent of the honor system these days. Honored, of course, for everyone but “you and yours” (meaning a given government/governmental body and its current band of financial supporters/lobbyists). It’s ironic, but what we really need is civilian authoritarianism over government operation.
It's hard to disagree. The Internet was like the one thing that actually worked for decades on the honor system. We're past that point now, the genie is out of the bottle. Unfortunately civilian authoritarianism doesn't work here, the internet is too large, too global, and has too many vested interests. The FCC had to step in because it became clear that the FTC was ill-equipped to handle the task at hand, and most importantly, the people demanded it.
All posters here forget that its the users that are paying the ISPs. And the fees are not cheap. Net neutrality are not fair to a lot of users in this respect. Netflix users half of the network traffic. But its subscribers are less than half of the internet population. So a lot of users don't use Netflix. In fact many of them use very little net traffic. Yet they are paying the same fees to ISPs. If the ISPs can force heavy traffic web sites to pay more fees, they can lower the fees to the poor users. And that should enable more people to get online. So the people opposing the new ruling is simply selfish.
Nonsense. When you use Netflix at home, you're also paying your ISP (often a hefty figure per month). Your ISP then covers its costs in moving the Netflix data with your and their other customers payments. As do the other ISPs.
You have reading problem. I do not use Netflix. I am paying the same heavy fee to the ISP as you that watch movie through internet for your own enjoyment. Is that fair?
Net neutrality isnt fair. It is all about greedy people trying to grt others to pay for the services they use.
What needs to happen is to have users pay for the bits transmitted. Effectively it is equivalent to paying for phone calls by the minute. This way heavy users would be paying their fair share and rightfully suffering for excessive use.
You're conflating two separate issues: consumption vs. cost is one argument. Internet Service Providers deciding what gets priority is a separate issue.
You seem to be concerned that you're subsidizing those who you perceive to be using more bandwidth than you. That's a fair concern, but let's look at it another way. Your home phone line is a fixed cost. You spend maybe five minutes a day on the phone, whereas your chatty neighbour seems to talk all day, every day. Is your phone bill subsidizing the neighbour's service? Why would it matter to you that she talks all day, as long as it doesn't interfere with you being able to use your own phone whenever you want?
Now let's put it in the same context as net neutrality. Your phone company can now decide that calls to and from Goldman Sachs get the highest priority. Those calls will connect instantly. Your calls are now low priority. They take a long time to connect and the sound quality is poor.
Why does GS get better service? Maybe just because the Board of the ISP likes them, but much more likely because GS backed a dumbstruck full of money up to the ISP's door. That means the start-up that would have provided you with unlimited medical diagnoses through DNA testing may never take off, because ISPs won't give them the bandwidth they need to succeed unless they, too, provide a dumptruck full of money. Rich operations benefit, less affluent services suffer.
The good news is there's an easy way for you to overcome the problem of your favourite service being throttled: Just subscribe to the all-new "Me1st" Plan(TM) from T-Rizlink! Tired, of slow, crappy-sounding phone service? Upgrade today and enjoy the same quality billionaire executives enjoy!
If you think for one second that eliminating net neutrality is going to lower your internet bill, I'd ask you to please show me examples of how a similar scenario has ever played out in the past, or why you think the ISP getting money from Netflix is going to make them want less from you? Because they can afford it? Is that how a capitalist business works?
If the argument is for fairness, then advocating for metered consumption billing is a reasonable argument. Letting service providers decide who you can access and how much speed to give those it allows will NOT affect the fairness of your payment.
The free loaders are unhappy now that they have to start paying. Love it. :Free loaders.
We are allowed to believe whatever we want and to bring those ideas with us into the voting booth but this nonsense position that "I pay my taxes and those guys over there don't ... So let's screw them" is among other long discredited gross human ideas too often attributed to those who seem to have completely run out of originql thought.
We call them Republicans. Here's the thing though... Republicans use the internet and the circus sideshow they elected in anger will rip down what they want and we will put it back up. But just so we're clear old woman/man - black people and Latinos aren't ruining this country... You are. Old angry entitled and irrelevant old white people.
Awww. Change is hard huh? Which us why I'm hopeful... They're on the way out.
The sooner this country has a voting population of people that's reflective of our actual makeup the sooner we will render all these classest racist unoriginal ideas moot.
The internet was built using public money and the speed at which those can access the basic internet should remain public and it's Title II status will be conferred. It is a utility and it has been for a decade. You simply cannot graduate from an elementary school in this country anywhere without broadband acess.
Also when you don't pay your phone me bill or electric bill they shut it off. It's not free it means it's considered a life tool.
So what's your plan tool when you rip all this " free shit" down? Will that give it to them enough ?
All posters here forget that its the users that are paying the ISPs. And the fees are not cheap. Net neutrality are not fair to a lot of users in this respect. Netflix users half of the network traffic. But its subscribers are less than half of the internet population. So a lot of users don't use Netflix. In fact many of them use very little net traffic. Yet they are paying the same fees to ISPs. If the ISPs can force heavy traffic web sites to pay more fees, they can lower the fees to the poor users. And that should enable more people to get online. So the people opposing the new ruling is simply selfish.
Nonsense. When you use Netflix at home, you're also paying your ISP (often a hefty figure per month). Your ISP then covers its costs in moving the Netflix data with your and their other customers payments. As do the other ISPs.
You have reading problem. I do not use Netflix. I am paying the same heavy fee to the ISP as you that watch movie through internet for your own enjoyment. Is that fair?
Net neutrality isnt fair. It is all about greedy people trying to grt others to pay for the services they use.
What needs to happen is to have users pay for the bits transmitted. Effectively it is equivalent to paying for phone calls by the minute. This way heavy users would be paying their fair share and rightfully suffering for excessive use.
You're conflating two separate issues: consumption vs. cost is one argument. Internet Service Providers deciding what gets priority is a separate issue.
You seem to be concerned that you're subsidizing those who you perceive to be using more bandwidth than you. That's a fair concern, but let's look at it another way. Your home phone line is a fixed cost. You spend maybe five minutes a day on the phone, whereas your chatty neighbour seems to talk all day, every day. Is your phone bill subsidizing the neighbour's service? Why would it matter to you that she talks all day, as long as it doesn't interfere with you being able to use your own phone whenever you want?
Now let's put it in the same context as net neutrality. Your phone company can now decide that calls to and from Goldman Sachs get the highest priority. Those calls will connect instantly. Your calls are now low priority. They take a long time to connect and the sound quality is poor.
Why does GS get better service? Maybe just because the Board of the ISP likes them, but much more likely because GS backed a dumbstruck full of money up to the ISP's door. That means the start-up that would have provided you with unlimited medical diagnoses through DNA testing may never take off, because ISPs won't give them the bandwidth they need to succeed unless they, too, provide a dumptruck full of money. Rich operations benefit, less affluent services suffer.
The good news is there's an easy way for you to overcome the problem of your favourite service being throttled: Just subscribe to the all-new "Me1st" Plan(TM) from T-Rizlink! Tired, of slow, crappy-sounding phone service? Upgrade today and enjoy the same quality billionaire executives enjoy!
If you think for one second that eliminating net neutrality is going to lower your internet bill, I'd ask you to please show me examples of how a similar scenario has ever played out in the past, or why you think the ISP getting money from Netflix is going to make them want less from you? Because they can afford it? Is that how a capitalist business works?
If the argument is for fairness, then advocating for metered consumption billing is a reasonable argument. Letting service providers decide who you can access and how much speed to give those it allows will NOT affect the fairness of your payment.
Your home phone line example is not relevant in the net neutrality debate. Because the use of home phone line today is no longer calling. It is maintaining a line so you and other people can use it when needed. People feeling they no longer need home phone line are dropping it. You cannot do that to ISPs today.
Your GS example is also narrow minded. Because beyond net neutrality US has many other laws governing businesses. Business cannot give preferences just because it likes. You don't know this?
All posters here forget that its the users that are paying the ISPs. And the fees are not cheap. Net neutrality are not fair to a lot of users in this respect. Netflix users half of the network traffic. But its subscribers are less than half of the internet population. So a lot of users don't use Netflix. In fact many of them use very little net traffic. Yet they are paying the same fees to ISPs. If the ISPs can force heavy traffic web sites to pay more fees, they can lower the fees to the poor users. And that should enable more people to get online. So the people opposing the new ruling is simply selfish.
Nonsense. When you use Netflix at home, you're also paying your ISP (often a hefty figure per month). Your ISP then covers its costs in moving the Netflix data with your and their other customers payments. As do the other ISPs.
You have reading problem. I do not use Netflix. I am paying the same heavy fee to the ISP as you that watch movie through internet for your own enjoyment. Is that fair?
Net neutrality isnt fair. It is all about greedy people trying to grt others to pay for the services they use.
What needs to happen is to have users pay for the bits transmitted. Effectively it is equivalent to paying for phone calls by the minute. This way heavy users would be paying their fair share and rightfully suffering for excessive use.
You're conflating two separate issues: consumption vs. cost is one argument. Internet Service Providers deciding what gets priority is a separate issue.
You seem to be concerned that you're subsidizing those who you perceive to be using more bandwidth than you. That's a fair concern, but let's look at it another way. Your home phone line is a fixed cost. You spend maybe five minutes a day on the phone, whereas your chatty neighbour seems to talk all day, every day. Is your phone bill subsidizing the neighbour's service? Why would it matter to you that she talks all day, as long as it doesn't interfere with you being able to use your own phone whenever you want?
Now let's put it in the same context as net neutrality. Your phone company can now decide that calls to and from Goldman Sachs get the highest priority. Those calls will connect instantly. Your calls are now low priority. They take a long time to connect and the sound quality is poor.
Why does GS get better service? Maybe just because the Board of the ISP likes them, but much more likely because GS backed a dumbstruck full of money up to the ISP's door. That means the start-up that would have provided you with unlimited medical diagnoses through DNA testing may never take off, because ISPs won't give them the bandwidth they need to succeed unless they, too, provide a dumptruck full of money. Rich operations benefit, less affluent services suffer.
The good news is there's an easy way for you to overcome the problem of your favourite service being throttled: Just subscribe to the all-new "Me1st" Plan(TM) from T-Rizlink! Tired, of slow, crappy-sounding phone service? Upgrade today and enjoy the same quality billionaire executives enjoy!
If you think for one second that eliminating net neutrality is going to lower your internet bill, I'd ask you to please show me examples of how a similar scenario has ever played out in the past, or why you think the ISP getting money from Netflix is going to make them want less from you? Because they can afford it? Is that how a capitalist business works?
If the argument is for fairness, then advocating for metered consumption billing is a reasonable argument. Letting service providers decide who you can access and how much speed to give those it allows will NOT affect the fairness of your payment.
Your home phone line example is not relevant in the net neutrality debate. Because the use of home phone line today is no longer calling. It is maintaining a line so you and other people can use it when needed. People feeling they no longer need home phone line are dropping it. You cannot do that to ISPs today.
Your GS example is also narrow minded. Because beyond net neutrality US has many other laws governing businesses. Business cannot give preferences just because it likes. You don't know this?
I may not have made my point clearly.
All I was trying to illustrate is that impartial access and so-called "fair" billing practices are two separate issues.
If people are concerned that their bills are subsidizing users who consume a lot of data while they use very little themselves, removing neutrality protections is not the solution. Doing so won't reduce their bills. It's a red herring.
Ban the government from setting up “legal” monopolies
that only allow one or maybe two, if you’re lucky, wired ISPs in your area. I
have no internet competition. Spectrum and ATT. That’s it. The government, who
is highly paid by these companies, will not allow anyone else to string a wire
and provide competition. Why do you think every MAJOR carrier is in favor.
Gives them government approved price fixing and lack of service to its
customers. Customer service SUCKS at these companies and the fix is make them
like DMV?
In Europe, many countries internet is carried over power
lines, giving you 5, 10, 20.... ISPs to choose from. They get greater speeds,
better prices.... all from the evil free market competition thing.
Get the government out of my internet. I don’t want them
picking winners and losers. That’s our job.
That both mentions net neutrality and universal service i.e.
Jack moved to a remote part of the Scottish countryside and wanted to get an internet connection in his new house there. After several companies had told him their networks didn't cover his area, he finally found out who the universal service provider was in Scotland. He contacted this company, which provided him with an internet connection.
By law it had to provde an internet service, were the request" reasonable". Whatever that means. Anyway, it's pretty highly regulated in Europe.
Tim Cook apposses anything the republicans want to do because he likes to be the center of attention and promote conflict. Perhaps if he spent as much effort as he does defying the government as he did in making sure his software worked, maybe iOS 11 wouldn’t have as many bugs as it does.
I think life will go on without net neutrality. The free market system will punish providers of slow/bad/throttled service and reward providers that don’t abuse.
Except that a good many users only have one provider to choose from.
Comments
Uber Engaged in ‘Illegal’ Spying on Rivals, Ex-Employee Says - The New York Times https://apple.news/AGzkkDnqgQwaQ6H786Nzlsg
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/09/15/what-is-the-open-internet-rule/
So what is being claimed is patently false. The Open Internet Order only functioned via the honor system, and when that honor system was betrayed, enforcement failed when put under legal pressure. That's why Net Neutrality is even something we're even talking about.
The problem, unfortunately, is that “legal pressure” is the equivalent of the honor system these days. Honored, of course, for everyone but “you and yours” (meaning a given government/governmental body and its current band of financial supporters/lobbyists). It’s ironic, but what we really need is civilian authoritarianism over government operation.
2. Perhaps they could explain the ways in which it has been successful?
3. Perhaps they could refrain from using tired platitudes in lieu of explanation? Particularly when such platitudes are never accepted in defense of the Constitution.
The language used on the page bothers me. I don’t much like activist .edu addresses… Something about that sits poorly. Probably because it’s vaguely related to the findings of the Dodd Report.
*On this point, I find another link on Brookings.edu to be of interest.
The FTC does what it can where it can, but it doesn't have the power to address all of the concerns. The way that it defines and enforces 'unfairness', for example, would still allow telecommunication companies to create fast and slow lanes, as well as selectively block services so long as they are counter-balanced with other 'benefits'. That is not equality of bits. The FTC is not equipped to govern a 'fair' internet. They are more than happy to tell you that they are, because that means more potential funding and expanded powers for them, but it's not the truth. It's a mess. Governing everything under Title II by far makes the most sense.
It's hard to disagree. The Internet was like the one thing that actually worked for decades on the honor system. We're past that point now, the genie is out of the bottle. Unfortunately civilian authoritarianism doesn't work here, the internet is too large, too global, and has too many vested interests. The FCC had to step in because it became clear that the FTC was ill-equipped to handle the task at hand, and most importantly, the people demanded it.
You seem to be concerned that you're subsidizing those who you perceive to be using more bandwidth than you. That's a fair concern, but let's look at it another way. Your home phone line is a fixed cost. You spend maybe five minutes a day on the phone, whereas your chatty neighbour seems to talk all day, every day. Is your phone bill subsidizing the neighbour's service? Why would it matter to you that she talks all day, as long as it doesn't interfere with you being able to use your own phone whenever you want?
Now let's put it in the same context as net neutrality. Your phone company can now decide that calls to and from Goldman Sachs get the highest priority. Those calls will connect instantly. Your calls are now low priority. They take a long time to connect and the sound quality is poor.
Why does GS get better service? Maybe just because the Board of the ISP likes them, but much more likely because GS backed a dumbstruck full of money up to the ISP's door. That means the start-up that would have provided you with unlimited medical diagnoses through DNA testing may never take off, because ISPs won't give them the bandwidth they need to succeed unless they, too, provide a dumptruck full of money. Rich operations benefit, less affluent services suffer.
The good news is there's an easy way for you to overcome the problem of your favourite service being throttled: Just subscribe to the all-new "Me1st" Plan(TM) from T-Rizlink! Tired, of slow, crappy-sounding phone service? Upgrade today and enjoy the same quality billionaire executives enjoy!
If you think for one second that eliminating net neutrality is going to lower your internet bill, I'd ask you to please show me examples of how a similar scenario has ever played out in the past, or why you think the ISP getting money from Netflix is going to make them want less from you? Because they can afford it? Is that how a capitalist business works?
If the argument is for fairness, then advocating for metered consumption billing is a reasonable argument. Letting service providers decide who you can access and how much speed to give those it allows will NOT affect the fairness of your payment.
Your GS example is also narrow minded. Because beyond net neutrality US has many other laws governing businesses. Business cannot give preferences just because it likes. You don't know this?
All I was trying to illustrate is that impartial access and so-called "fair" billing practices are two separate issues.
If people are concerned that their bills are subsidizing users who consume a lot of data while they use very little themselves, removing neutrality protections is not the solution. Doing so won't reduce their bills. It's a red herring.
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/telecoms-internet/internet-access/index_en.htm
That both mentions net neutrality and universal service i.e.
Jack moved to a remote part of the Scottish countryside and wanted to get an internet connection in his new house there. After several companies had told him their networks didn't cover his area, he finally found out who the universal service provider was in Scotland. He contacted this company, which provided him with an internet connection.
By law it had to provde an internet service, were the request" reasonable". Whatever that means. Anyway, it's pretty highly regulated in Europe.