There are economic incentives to deliver what people want. Fox news is hugely profitable because it delivers to people what no other media organization delivers, and that is a right wing perspective on events. Throughout the Obama years, Fox News made insane amount of money precisely for this reason.
You're being downvoted for making people read the words "Fox news" but you're absolutely right about this.
I would state it another way though. Fox news is hugely profitable because it provides information to people that validates, reinforces, and legitimizes their particular social and political beliefs. It thickens the walls of their bubble. Fox news led the way with this and every other network quickly followed suit.
No, they really are not. "Economic incentives" only come into play when there are choices. Most people do not have any kind of choice in their ISP, thus the "Economic incentives" argument carries no water.
Currently there isn't a strong enough economic incentive. You may think that your service sucks, but that does not create an enough economic incentive.
This does not counter the argument that if tomorrow an ISP not delivering the content you desire, then there wouldn't be a rise of a newer service/solutions (they don't really have to be a new ISP btw) which allow consumers to access the suppressed viewpoint.
You are arguing against common carrier status for ISPs on the basis that such regulation currently impedes economic incentives.
The example you've given is a highly successful cable channel from a different yet still heavily regulated industry. What does this have to do with common carrier status for ISPs?
