In plain English, it means that “everybody has equal access” and that “nobody should have to pay any more than anybody else”.
Well that sounds fair, right? To me, it’s kind of not.
You probably know (and it makes perfect sense) that watching movies over Netflix or whatever involves the biggest movement of “bits” over whatever pipe brings ‘net svce into your home. User “A” is a movie fiend and watches 20 or more movies a week. User “B” surfs the net, sends emails, looks for Amazon deals, checks out this and that, downloads some itunes (that is another biggish but nothing like movie bit-sucker) User “A” *also* does those casual things. But “A”’s movie usage could require 50 or 100 or FIVE hundred more times as much bandwidth and router usage (back at the central office of your ISP) So should “A” pay any more than “B”?
Speaking of central office, the massive Netflix user imposes a much bigger load for the ISP, and the more of those NFLX users there are, this requires expensive equipment upgrades all the time.
I myself think there’s reason for “A” to pay more than “B” (or, “B” to pay less) After all, “we” impose bigger road taxes for trucks than cars. Bridges charge bigger tolls for trucks than cars. Theory being, trucks cause more road wear.
The much bigger, perhaps more sinister implication, is the government control and all the fun stuff that usually implies.
If the idea is “access for all”, my view is that casual users should get a cheaper rate, which would make it easier for them. Massive users should pay more. But some folks view that as a “poll tax: kind of thing like voter ID. I will excuse myself from getting too far into weeds over the gov’t influence implications. The nub of the matter is, “should massive users pay more?”
I absolutely hate your explanation of taking away freedom. In fact, I think we just shut down the whole dang internet is basically what you just need to say. Your explanation is so repulsive. Another us vs them tired explanation.