It appears with the FCC's recent announcement
the "Net Neutrality" discussion has been hoodwinked
. This time by "muh evil corporations
, specifically of the Cable & Broadband Service Provider
variety, who, it is said, will take advantage of the situation to out-price and over-charge their customers for access. Such is the concern about this 'infringement' the likes of Google, Facebook and other Information Service Providers
have jumped on the bandwagon in support of "a free and open Internet
And no-one stops to ask "why?
". Is it any wonder so busy are the social media catastrophists in threatening self-harm, or engaging themselves in Munchhausen level insanity or Category 5 hysterics, ginned up as always it seems these days by a Main Stream News narrative laying claim the World is to end because their Internet is being taken away! (by the same Corporations that own them and the network providers). Just why would all these 'media' and 'information' Corporations and Entities be so concerned about the individuals remonstrating #FirstWorldProblems so furiously?. As customers of ComCast or any number cable/network service providers, what is the individuals ability to access content to them? After all they have their own networks over which their content is distributed into which cable/broadband companies essentially plug - cable/broadband service providers are not the Internet, they are simply consumer conduits or gateways into the broader network of systems
The question answers itself in a way. Of course media
providers have joined the fight for "a free internet
" because they benefit directly from their data being freely available ("free
" as in "accessible
" not "free
" as in "from cost
"), except when they are the ones asking consumers cough up increased subscriptions for 4k, special or exclusive content, their
And this is not speaking to Google, Facebook et al setting up their own "differentiated networks
, of the light infrastructural footprint of Mobile & Wireless providers, over which "Net Neutrality" regulations have (little to) no impact.
This makes the actual
"Net Neutrality" debate one of Corporate funded astro-turfed anti-competitive sabotage; hinder the competition, who are tied to massive physical infrastructure overheads, with regulations that only apply to them, de-facto burdened BY LAW with providing minimal service whilst the late-comers to the game get the upper hand, being free to invest in new technologies and regions instead of up-keeping old crumbling infrastructure.
Any way one cares (dares) to cut it, that's not "Net Neutrality", not by a long shot.Further Reading
- President Obama's Plan for a Free and Open Internet
- FCC Open Commission Meeting (Feb 2015)
- Two tier Internet - Net Neutrality has been hoodwinked
- Net Neutrality - EU abolishes mobile roaming charges
 Today's Victory on Net Neutrality - "'Net neutrality' has been built into the fabric of the internet since its creation -- but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas." - except the very nature of the supply and demand market forces that BUILT the Internet have ALWAYS "pick[ed] winners and losers", it's never been "neutral" in that respect.
 The likes of Google (Google Fibre), Facebook (Internet.org infrastructure initiative) and other global information services being involved in the "Net Neutrality" debate motivated by developing new and more profitable markets for their products... whilst Facebook, though Internet.org, pushes the 'humanitarian' angle with their outreach, the ONLY reason for doing so is to coerce the remaining 50% or so of the Worlds population without Internet into using Facebook based services ('internet access' being the carrot to dangle)... the United States, and much of Europe for that matter, have reached the top of the bell-curve where increasingly disproportionate investment is needed to push reach beyond the 80+ percent it currently is, resources that used elsewhere will garner much greater profits and Government influence, often in poorer countries with much weaker currency valuations, making the US$ stretch even further (buyers remorse not having set in as is the case in the the USA/EU/AU where users are increasingly finding themselves subject to depression and other anxiety related disorders as a consequence of unfettered Internet use).