I think the intention is something like: A service which is free from the creato...

muro · on Jan 20, 2018

1. It carries a cost before, just the way it's charged had changed 2. It's not free

jachee · on Jan 21, 2018

1. It shouldn't.

2. Other Manufacturers provide it for free.

To the consumer, it is as if Verizon were to start charging extra annual fees to access YouTube content while Comcast, AT&T and every other ISP don't.

EpicEng · on Jan 21, 2018

Oh, "other manufacturers" you say? So you mean, the market is competitive and I have a choice? That, among the other reasons listed, is why it's nothing like net neutrality. Also, your #1 is an opinion.