"Net Neutrality is about innovative content providers being allowed to continue piggybacking on the common carriers without pulling their own weight on the cost side of infrastructure and last mile delivery"
The problem is -- well, A problem is -- wait let me start again -- among our problems is the fact that cable TV companies in the U.S. for mostly historical reasons now, have very strong regulation-mandated monopolies throughout the communities they serve. And it is entirely disingenuous to conflate "common carriers" with cable TV providers. Net neutrality is all about making them behave like common carriers.
What I mean is, in many if not most local communities, it IS NOT POSSIBLE for a content provider to legally pull their own weight by providing their own infrastructure. Whichever TV provider owns the franchise has a monopoly on "cables to the houses", mandated by the local city council or state legislature. Any content provider who wants to "pull their own weight" could only do it by paying the
TV company whatever amount the TV company demands.
That, in a nutshell, is what the Net Neutrality argument is about -- Does Comcast decide what websites you can usefully connect to? The alternative is to repeal the thousands of local ordinances that currently give Comcast that power, or alternatively, mandate that Comcast transport bytes at a non-discriminatory price for all comers.
Do we want an internet and a TV viewing system, or just the TV?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
