(1) Large ISP companies fight feverishly against net neutrality. (2) Based on past experience, it is inconceivable to me that they would so feverishly fight for the end-users' benefit. (3) Therefore, they fight against net neutrality because ending it is very beneficial to them. (4) If it's so beneficial to them, ending net neutrality is probably not so good for the end-users.
I am not sure (2) works in this logic chain. The net neutrality is presented in the infospace as beneficial to the end-users. If ISPs fight against it, they would be fighting against the end-users' benefit. This is not so inconceivable, yes?
If I remember well they were saying that the extra income from the internet companies would allow them to improve the network and that would benefit end users.
(1) Large ISP companies fight feverishly against net neutrality. (2) Based on past experience, it is inconceivable to me that they would so feverishly fight for the end-users' benefit. (3) Therefore, they fight against net neutrality because ending it is very beneficial to them. (4) If it's so beneficial to them, ending net neutrality is probably not so good for the end-users.
Which one?