Is there any evidence media companies were actually doing that, though? There's never been any difficulty finding left wing subversive content on the web and the big companies could have been doing this all along if they wanted to.
The only thing net "neutrality" does is enable the government/FCC to do things like that since they're the ones who define what constitutes "neutrality" with no possibility for judicial review if I recall correctly. So if you don't think the way the FCC is administering this stuff is neutral you can't sue them. With Trump of all people in charge of the executive branch you'd think that would be the last thing the left would want.
But this has already happened to varying degrees. This is from Wiki:
Also, something not covered by net neutrality rules is ISPs instituting data caps then exempting certain services from said caps, which has the effect of driving users to those services because they don't count against their artificially-low data caps. I mean that really works out for the ISPs - they institute data caps that are completely arbitrary, then exempt their favored services, possibly because they've gotten kickbacks or other treats from those businesses/services. Charging your competitors extra money or flat out throttling their access to their networks is the logical next step, and arguably was the first step, but was limited by law for a short time.
Everything the telecoms have become and everything they continue to do and push for indicates they will abuse the internet in the ways people have warned about. These are not benevolent companies by any means. If they had no intention of not pursuing such strategies down the road, I don't think they'd have fought tooth and nail against net neutrality restrictions.
Also, a big reason why Comcast and Verizon want net neutrality repealed is a further push to tiered internet packages. I am sure a high-tier gaming/media streaming package is in the works. They already have these but when NN is repealed, it would open the floodgates for this package, esp to compete for the business of cord cutters.
More expensive Internet for people who use huge amounts of bandwidth is in itself reasonable. Gamers and commercial users are obvious enough. People who use the Internet for streaming high-data material, like video in extreme definition, might as well pay more. But price associated with cost is the norm in the American economy.
The solution is more competition -- not less. If one does not trust one's Internet provider, one should have an alternative even if that is more costly.
I can imagine some people wanting certain material, like pornography, blocked. (But there are Net-minder programs that can do that anyway).
