Assuming youtube is something desirable, let's not forget that it has been created for the sole purpose of selling to a giant company too big to be able to innovate and too slow to conquer users while youtube purposely used pirated content for its growth. Nowadays years after youtube has been bought to be the frontend UI of googlevideo.com youtube is considered to be an example of internet centralization, users tracking and spying, automated censorship, geolocalized blocking, among others criticisms.
Maybe consider a better suited example next time you want to take a stance for net neutrality, maybe peer-to-peer.
It does't matter whether or not you think its ethical in its current incarnation. Youtube was a startup that became one of the most popular sites on the internet[1] and were acquired by Google. If they had to pay a gatekeeper to deliver those bits it might not have been a viable idea. The examples are not the point but rather the environment that those were produced in - i.e an environment of an open internet.
>"Maybe consider a better suited example next time you want to take a stance for net neutrality, maybe peer-to-peer."
Maybe consider not createing straw man fallacies the next time you want to be critical of other people's comments.
From the post:
"The result: ISPs would be able to once again prioritize, block and throttle with impunity. This means fewer opportunities for startups and entrepreneurs, and a chilling effect on innovation, free expression and choice online"
Do you not believe that the global internet has benefitted from North American tech companies that were able to innovate in part because they did't have to contend with gatekeepers and paid prioritization of traffic? Would Youtube have been possible under such a regime? Don't people from all over the globe consume Youtube content?
Additionally Ajat Pai is an ex Verizon lawyer. Verizon being half of the broadband duopoly in the US. Most countries have some similar former PTT(post telephone telgraph) monopoly/duopoly. This action sets a precedent for any other countries where the monopoly/duopoly is seeking to enact a similar gatekeeper/pay to play regime where there now stands an open internet.