Yes, that was the marketing. But if you looked closely it was about controlling other people's property. When that is the case, you know the government is really just trying to sneak their nose under the tent now and then will change its story later.

I was under the impression, perhaps wrong, that Net Neutrality was what we've had since WWW became the killer app that popularized the Internet, and now providers are proposing a change. So Neutrality, as I've heard it sold, is the status quo, not a new gov't initiative.

If we really think about it, is the government set up to be good at anything? To me the answer is no. They are a monopoly with the power of force. And a monopoly does not have a natural force to make it as good as it could be. That is why, for people to be as free as possible, government must be very limited. So should they control the internet? Not if we want it to be accessible to the most.

CG, It is the government trying to do something. With rare exceptions that means more control for the government and bureaucrats.

I had never heard this side of the story. Very interesting. It sounds like it's not as simple as Net Neutrality being a way to allow anyone to communicate over the Internet and stop the appearance of gatekeepers to information. That's how I had heard it sold: "If we don't have Net Neutrality, gatekeepers will appear and make it hard for minority views to be heard." This article suggests it may be exactly the opposite.

Liberal marketing, call a set of government regulation Neutral. The sad point is that many good people have been fooled by the marketing.