The most damaging– and most prevalent (being supported by the NN opposition, and so repeated ad nauseum)– fallacy about net neutrality is that NN regulation would disallow “levels of service.” It’s simply untrue. That’s why fud like this:
I’m not seeing a really compelling case for Net Neutrality; different levels of service are available for pretty much every other form of private infrastructure
particularly dangerous. NN regulations don’t prevent levels of service, as long as those levels are based on bandwidth rather than content. NN doesn’t seek to prevent charging more for more bandwidth or more traffic. Those who want high-speed cable or DSL will be charged more than low-speed, those who need more thoroughput will still pay for it.
Net Neutrality simply says that the provider of bandwidth can’t charge me more or less based on content. I can’t be charged more for downloading NPR streams than NBC, or for using VoIP more than gaming. Bandwidth providers want to double-dip– allowing them to be compensated for their service from us and from content providers while we still have to pay whatever content providers wish to charge.
Imagine if your provider told you, in January, that you would be paying $69 monthly for your high speed connection with 5 gigabytes of transfer, but you would have to pay an extra tariff for accessing content from media outlets other than MSNBC and affiliates because the provider was being paid by MSNBC. Or they tell you they will charge you $49 a month but then double it because you use Vonage and Skype– even though you receive/use no more resources than before. Talk about squelching competition and innovation.
That’s simply unfair, and in our marketplace– which is effectively a duopoly– not countering such unfairness will have dramatic consequences for consumers. Providers, on the other hand, have a vested interest in casting NN in a bad light because they are the ones who stand to profit handsomely… twice.