And shouldn't you be listening when the people who have made internet possible today (Tim Berners-Lee, Steven Bellovin, Steve Wozniak and Brewster Kahle to name a few) is very much against it?
The vote, the process and the resulting decision otherwise should be done in an objective and transparent manner. Just the way that the internet has been envisioned to be.
Well, technically it wasn't a majority, but it was a majority of the people who's votes count the most.
Because of crony politics.
I doubt they learned anything at all from their failure to get Clinton elected, though. I don't know that Sanders could have won the general election, but arguably the DNC's sabotage of the Sanders campaign and their subsequent failure to win the general election (with probably Russian interference) has and will continue to cost us dearly, now that we have lost much good faith in our international relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b...
http://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wass...
The controversy of executive appointments across 2017 was... Somewhat unprecedented.
Now, if the standard were “no” instead of “less”, the answer would be very different.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority .
/s
It's exactly analogous to the RIAA squeezing music startups dry: You absolutely have to pay them so why would they demand anything less than everything you make?
So why should ISPs demand anything less than everything the internet companies make?
Comcast/Verizon/etc don't want to pick a fight with Google or Facebook. They want to pick fights they can easily win and gain extra money from: companies too small to pose a threat.