Friend, Brainiac and Vintage Scotch Connosieur, Lawrence M. Ludlow, past along the following evisceration of the current "Net Neutrality" hype.
NET NEUTRALITY = Wet dream of FB, Amazon, Google, and govt. HT to Bretigne Shaffer for this post, which concludes by referencing the verity of "regulatory capture," which is the concept that regulatory mechanisms are generally proposed by the dominant organizations in an industry to shut out startup competitors, which is exactly what net neutrality would accomplish for Amazon, Google, and Facebook. Only govt makes it possible:
'Net Neutrality was essentially a Trojan horse for greater government control and regulation of the core traffic of the internet. It is a solution in search of a problem. Remember, Net Neutrality was only implemented in 2015, so it's only been around for two years. But, they sold it to us to solve the "problem" of ISPs selling access to different services for different prices.
Now, I want you to tell me when your ISP charged you a different price for access to email, or social networking, or streaming video prior to 2015?
The answer is...they didn't. It never happened.
The government essentially created a problem so that they could be the solution. This allowed the FCC to begin regulating the Internet as a semi-public utility, and allow five people to decide who will be allowed access to what on the internet. It was their foot in the door.
Remember, the Internet was the answer to the censorship that FCC regulations created in the first place. The Internet was the answer to having only four TV networks, and only a handful of radio stations. The Internet was the answer to not being able to say "shit" on the radio. The Internet was the answer to not being able to see boobies on TV. The Internet was the answer to the FCC limiting your freedom of speech, and your access to unconventional ideas.
All of a sudden, the FCC is there to ensure that we have freedom of choice?
Also, you should consider who supports Net Neutrality. It is the companies that have the largest share of internet traffic, among them Google, Facebook, and Amazon. Perhaps not coincidentally, these are the same companies who have collected more personal data on you than anyone else.
So, let's do a thought experiment. What if your ISP told you that you had to pay extra to use Google...or Facebook...or Amazon? You'd probably find another ISP, right? It would make absolutely zero business sense for an ISP to do that.
And, why would the largest content providers support it, knowing full well that no ISP would ever try to charge more for their content? I mean, would you want an ISP that told you, you had to pay extra for Facebook?
Here's why they support it. Google, Facebook, and Amazon (GFA) would be one step closer to monopoly status. They want to blur and merge the line between content providers (them) and content delivery (ISPs). Once the Pandora's Box that is FCC regulation is in place, GFA would have the regulatory body necessary to ensure startup competitors could not comply with the regulations. Currently, GFA simply purchases companies which have the potential to compete with their core products. However, that cost them billions to do so. In many cases, once they purchase the small competitors, they shelve them and redirect their traffic to their core products.
However, if GFA were to have a regulatory body, such as the FCC, regulating ISPs and ultimately content providers, they would have a much cheaper way to prevent start-up competitors from gaining a foothold in the market. And, lobbying government to implement regulation favorable to them costs exponentially less than buying competitive companies.
So, net neutrality is a long play for them. It doesn't matter WHAT the FCC is talking about regulating on the Internet. To them, it's about ensuring the FCC is simply regulating. It's about getting that government foot in the door to protect their content monopolies. But that's not even their longest play. Their ultimate goal is data collection and behavior control.
Because that's really the business that GFA is in. If they can limit your choices for content, they can ensure they have access to the most data about you, and control your purchasing behavior...at minimum.' - smart FB commenter
Seriously, if you think you have more to fear from an ISP than from a government agency, you are absolutely delusional.