With the recent leak of a proposed ruling by the FCC, to encourage internet providers the ability to charge fees to companies who are using the internet to distribute content (think Amazon, Netflix), a new internet could emerge over the next few years, one without net neutrality
This fee could serve as a balancing act to reduce internet prices, to you or I, who do not distribute tons of information over the internet when compared to Netflix, yet we still pay for the infrastructure to accommodate all of those large data transfers.
This will also, provide internet providers, and the government, through the internet providers, a better way to extinguish intellectual property theft. It will also allow corporations (the biggest investors in the infrastructure of the internet) a way to once again control the message entirely over the most influence medium of the day and most likely in the future, the internet.
Now, this is a good and a bad thing for many reasons, which means it should be scrapped all together, for a better, more democratically designed rule set, to ensure the worse of these new proposed rules never sees the light of day.
At its best, the end of net neutrality, would in a Utopian world, slightly reduce the costs to consumers for internet services, but most likely would inhibit economic growth overall, reducing its intended benefit
Unfortunately, any services using the internet to deliver you a service will also go up to pay for the new rules being propose by the FCC and the Obama regime. After all, President Obama placed big-media sweetheart Tom Wheeler at the head of the FCC to do their corporate bidding, well done again Democrats, you really are knocking it out of the ball park over the last six years (this is not a plug for Republicans, who are slightly worse than Democrats when it comes to governing our society).
What is most likely to occur, is that big consolidated corporations will now use the fees they will be able to charge with this new ruling in order to install a new internet.
If you can afford to pay the premium fees, which will be much higher than you are paying now, you'll be able to access the internet at super-high-speeds, speeds that allow for the distribution of content.
The rest of us, without the ability to pay for this super-highway, will experience the slower side of the internet, for roughly the same price you pay now, but without the ability to effectively distribute content.
This may or may not seem relevant to you, but if you are reading this, it is because AND Magazine has the ability to distribute content at the same rate as NBC, without having to pay an inflated toll to do it.
Without this ability, internet providers, who are owned by a super-consolidated-minority, can create fees, high enough to effectively destroy competition, and distort alternative news sources, voices, and the non-wealthy from being able to use the internet to distribute their content as they do today, which is the genius and beauty of our internet.
For a very small fee, if I had the world's hottest movie, I could post it online and compete essentially with the content in the theaters and over the cable and satellite airwaves. Under the new rules, in order to effectively stream my movie, I would have to pay a fee, one that most likely will be prohibitive for any individuals or institutions not making millions of dollars a year already.
This will create a new internet, where, content producers who pay the fee for the super-fast lane will dominate over the slower content, produced by people who cannot afford the fee. We already know Millennials are not at all wired to wait for content, they have an attention span of 8 seconds or less
until they move on to something more instantaneous.
The content on the faster lane will therefore dominate, and of course, it will be content created by big money interests, just another way for them to control their message, control their definition of terms, and control their mass campaign of disinformation to keep consumers and voters dumbed-down.