Especially around 2015, I wrote several texts about net neutrality.
Under Obama's watch, the U.S. regulator of Internet providers, the FCC, adopted the "net neutrality" rules for the Internet. The phrase is constructed to sound "positive" but it is really a form of a ban. Net neutrality means that the Internet providers aren't really allowed to differ from each other in any tangible way. Just like all their competitors, they have to mindlessly and uncritically transfer any data types that someone sends through, without any "discrimination" that would block or even slow down any kind of packets or that would make the fees dependent on anything else than the bitrates and transferred volumes.
Clearly, "net neutrality" is just a severe restriction on people's freedom, a method to force a monopoly or egalitarianism over the users and Internet businesses, and a hurdle slowing down the evolution of specialized services that could live on the Internet. Under the "net neutrality" regime, if streamed porn videos become the dominant type of data in the whole society, they're basically guaranteed to dominate within every Internet provider.
FCC will vote about net neutrality on December 14th and if they vote to abolish this Obama era anachronism, America should be liberated from this particular communist conspiracy between 2018 and at least 2021 when the Democrats may gain enough power to reintroduce it.
The extreme leftists are writing lots of hateful, irrational diatribes, they are organizing rallies, and some peabrains in Hollywood are inventing some really stupid conspiracy theories that are quite a proof of the terrifying "Zeitgeist" as seen from the would-be elites' viewpoint. In particular, actors Mark Ruffalo and Alyssa Milano have claimed that the Russian agents and bots have pushed the discussion on the social networks to promote the cancellation of net neutrality. Funnily enough, FCC boss Ajit Pai shut them down with some cold hard data. There were messages about neutrality from Russia but they were overwhelmingly in favor of net neutrality! That gotta hurt.
So the actors' conspiracy theory doesn't really work – except as a proof that they're brain-dead, indeed. But this kind of a conspiracy theory is very typical these days. Some radical leftists invent their classification of good and evil. They just declare themselves to be on the side of the good, Russia to be on the side of evil, Russia is surely intervening and controlling all the other evil behind the scenes, and that's why everyone is obliged to agree with them. They don't spend a second by verifying whether Russia stands on the side they claim, whether Russia does anything, let alone whether their side is the good one.
Libertarian economist Gary North wrote a very relevant essay about the expected cancellation of net neutrality:
The New York Times like to use ludicrous cataclysmic language but when you try to look for some phrases that could contain the beef explaining their position, you first encounter "preferential treatment". They hate preferential treatment. But in business, preferential treatment usually means that high bid wins. A provider may have a very good plan to win some money by getting some enhanced amount of cash for guaranteeing a particular thing on the Internet.
North argues that the principle saying that the "high bid wins" is a foundation of the free markets and that the leftists just hate the idea that "regular people" could have access to the free markets. They only find free markets OK when they pay for overpriced paintings by Picasso, aside from more modern examples that I would pick instead. The leftists also hate profit-making large companies and the often tough competitive struggle that the life of for-profit companies is all about. They prefer non-profit subsidized organizations where they can get a job easily, without worries, just for their being obnoxious ideologues repeating the "right" (which is their deceitful word for "left") party line all the time. They want a system where apparatchiks like themselves have a control over everything – and don't need to share power with large corporations and the consumer and producer interests that they represent.
The New York Times' diatribe is framed as a defense of underfunded producers. But the leftist author would never care about the consumers – whether they really want the products by these producers or other products. The general point is that the leftists want to pick the winners and losers whether or not anyone agrees with them. It's ironic that it's sometimes the same leftists who defend the ban on anti-immigration or any other opinions on the Internet. But a slowdown of streaming porn videos by a provider that decided to focus its services differently – e.g. a provider who wants to safely transfer data for self-driving cars – is presented as a cataclysmic blasphemy.
North's essay is fun. Next Thursday, America has a chance to regain freedom in this particular context. Good luck.