Net neutrality is not the simple "government intervention versus
laissez-faire" debate so depicted by both Republicans and Democrats. Net neutrality, once you peel the onion, is really a dog-eat-dog battle between the incumbent cable/telephone monopolies (often referred to as "the duopoly") and Internet application providers, ranging from Google to the smallest start-ups.
Put simply, net neutrality pits one set of crony capitalists against another.
The question Americans need to ask is: which crony capitalists benefit consumers more: a second-generation Ma Bell monopoly or the entire ecosystem of Internet start-ups, the list of which would require an Access database to track.
In fact, net neutrality really involves a couple of fairly simple questions that require a deeper analysis than the 12-second soundbite that today's consumers often demand.
Should the cable-telephone duopoly be permitted to speed up and slow down the Internet traffic of different application providers in order to extract more revenue? Or should they instead be required to ask consumers to pay for faster bandwidth in an application-agnostic way?
The crony capitalists on the cable-telephone side insist that the government let them do what they want to application providers. This would allow Comcast, for instance, to slow down Netflix delivery to consumers so that either the video provider pays extra fees... or else. Further, Comcast could launch its own competitive video service while degrading Netflix.
Conversely, the crony capitalists among the Internet application providers -- from Google to Lyft -- want the government to ensure a level playing field. They believe that the likes of Comcast should not be allowed to pick-and-choose winners and losers; consumers should.
This begs the question:
Is Internet service a utility, like energy, water or sewer lines?
Given heavy lobbying by the duopoly
at the local level, most American consumers have only one choice when it comes to high-speed Internet access. A relatively small percentage of households, even those in heavily populated areas, have only two distinct choices for Internet access.
The duopoly asserts that cable and telephone companies are simple, private entities and should not be regulated in regards to Internet traffic.
Alternatively, the Internet application community contends that Internet pipes are indeed a utility and deserve similar treatment.
What is the duopoly really after?