From what I have read over the last few years, it is actually the private telecommunications companies that are wanting to screw people not the government per say. The whole Netflix thing is a power grab by the ISPs pure and simple. They refuse to expand their capacity to meet demand and must find alternatives to keep that demand down.
Increasing the capacity of a network is not an inexpensive thing. Lots of expense in the high speed data lines from the communications providers, and lots of engineering that has to go into the router and switch gear to support it. Any expansion of network capacity has to be cost justified by the ISP, based on their subscribers usage and their subscriber's charges. They just may have a situation where they can't afford to increase their network capacity.
So they have to manage their network to the best end result and service satisfaction of their customers (basically piss the fewest number of people off, as it's not too hard to change ISPs, so yes, they are competing for customers).
On way is to slow down Netflix or other services, and hence force Netflix to pay more for content delivery.. this means the ISP not only makes your Netflix more expensive, but it is actually already taking far more from you as the consumer for what it is delivering... because the same rules also apply to you. In your contract it most likely says "unlimited" but in the small print it will clearly state "unless you use effects the quality of service of all".. which in geek speak means.. if you download too much, then we reserve the right to throttle you instead of expanding capacity. Comcast has been caught in doing it a few times.
Again, you aren't going to get 10 lbs of crap through a 5 lbs pipe. Bandwidth abusers, those who ruin it for everyone else, should be throttled back somewhat. It's called managing your network resources to maintain the greatest number of satisfied customers.
What these internet companies want is a tiered pay system, so you pay to get access to Youtube and Netflix and that they dictate what sites you can visit..... that is something everyone should be fighting against, because that will mean even higher prices for internet services.
I really don't see IPSs charging more for access to any Internet web content. It's a billing headache for them, and would lead to intense customer dislike. I'm not seeing it as a viable action for the ISPs.
Now saying that, instead of "net neutrality", he could just force open up the market instead and you watch how fast the big companies stop their power grab when suddenly the have to actually compete.
Umm, they are competing. They are competing on a subscriber by subscribe basis. Bad Internet experience and the subscriber jumps ship to another ISP first chance they get. This'll lower the demand for that part of an ISPs network. IT's kinda self-regulating that way.
The US already has some of the highest prices for internet access in the industrialized world and it comes down to lack of competition. And because of this lack of competition, the tele companies think (and can) dictate quality of service and basically screw over the consumer on a daily basis as we have seen with Netflix. That Verizon was allowed to slow down Netflix and say it was not (utter lie)... just shows how much power these 4 or so main internet providers have in the US.
In each community, there is a process that the cable co / ISP / television provider has to go through to be allowed to enter that market. Most communities that are fairly populous have multiple providers to chose from. If there's a throttle to competition, this would be it. Once in the market, the providers compete intensely for subscribers, to the point of giving away packages of channels and high speeds for Internet, and throw telephone service in for free, for example.
Yes, Comcast, AT&T U-Verse, and a few others are the largest ones, but there are a lot of smaller ones too. I fail to see how you believe that there isn't competition, when there is. I prefer WideOpenWest (WOW), as they have excellent performance, excellent customer service, and I pay about the going rate for the service (channels and Internet speeds) that I get.
Suffice it to say, this sounds like the government suffering from the delusion that they can manage an ISPs network better than the ISP can themselves (with everything to gain by effective network management and everything to lose with ineffective network management), and I really don't think that this is reality. The government comes along with yet another 'one size fits all' idea and mentality, and is bound to corrupt, distort and damage yet another market of which they have academicians and their 'theories' about how it works, rather than practical experience as how it really works.
I'm not seeing anything compelling here for me to believe that this is a good idea.