I don't expect (or want) the post office to open my letter, read it, and decide to charge an increased fee because I mention it.
I don't expect (or want) the post office to open the reply letter, and add an advertisement for the new government owned camping that just opened.
As my peer below stated, Comcast was caught disrupting P2P traffic which I hope gets addressed, but that's not how NN it's being sold and sensationalized today.
Edit: Clarifications
If you believe that what Reddit and Twitter are doing is wrong, then why on earth would a reasonable solution be to extend the ability to do more of that to actors that one cannot reasonably avoid? I have a grand total of 1 ISP to choose from. The vast, vast majority of Americans have 1 or 2 to choose from. If NN is revoked, and Cox (my ISP) decides they're going to act like Twitter, then I have exactly no recourse. Why do you believe that is the way to go?
I'm just pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the recent campaigns talking about censorship as a possibility when the right has been getting attacked/censored by every big SV company in recent years. Now they're crying about possibility when they're engaged in the very act themselves. I guess they're right, they would know, so yeah i'm pro-NN.
Censorship is a problem in certain cases (government, especially viewpoint-based censorship, for instance), but not in all cases.
It's true that Rep Blackburn has the right to express her opinion, but libel has always been an exception to freedom of speech in this country. Twitter is under no obligation to accept money in order to help someone spread libel.
Which is due to Net Neutrality!
Take away Net Neutrality, and the ISPs etc. can also get in on the censorship game.
And there have been problems with ISPs - Comcast silently disrupting P2P connections, etc.
But true free speech isn't an option either -- it's well-established that someone falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded room should be held accountable if someone gets injured in the frenzy that follows. The implication there (as I see it) is you can be held accountable for speech that hurts others.
So how then do you define "hurting others"? That's where I feel the real debate begins, and those who dislike Reddit/Facebook/others' actions dislike their definition of "hurting others".
Look at it this way: HN is a very heavily moderated board. There are lots of troll posts and spam posts that get removed, usually pretty quickly. Do you believe that's a good thing, or a bad thing?
As it should be! People have the freedom to use bandwidth to go to any site they like to.
Hypocrisy of the highest order. "We like the free market, except when we do not agree with it."
Especially if they are already paying for it monthly.
Google/Twitter/Etc can all at least say "you are not paying for this just mooching off of our infrastructure, don't whine when we delete your post".
To be honest, if I look back at my last 20 years on the internet, I have seen more colorable censorship from the Reddits/Googles/Twitters of the world than from the various satellite cos, ISPs, telcos, quagmiric microwave relay companies, and mobile phone networks I've used to get on the internet.
Disclosure: I am on bd of Lincoln Network, which put together the event in D.C. where Pai spoke.