Net neutrality basically says, these are the legally acceptable network protocols and architectures. It inevitably requires a specific technical definition of acceptable traffic patterns and network uses, either by Congress or by case law.
So much of what we think about neutrality is based on a hand-wavy assumption of natural monopolies, that our current lack of last-mile competition is inevitable. At different times, we thought the same of package delivery, voice calling, sending messages. The things that obviated them were not obvious, a la “faster horses”.
Thought about this way, neutrality legislation actually locks in the incumbents’ current arrangements instead of opening them to (so far unimagined) asymmetric competition.
So much of what we think about neutrality is based on a hand-wavy assumption of natural monopolies, that our current lack of last-mile competition is inevitable. At different times, we thought the same of package delivery, voice calling, sending messages. The things that obviated them were not obvious, a la “faster horses”.
Thought about this way, neutrality legislation actually locks in the incumbents’ current arrangements instead of opening them to (so far unimagined) asymmetric competition.