xSauronx, check the discussion on the NANOG mailing list archives of the L3/Comcast peering fight that happened recently. There was a good discussion (argument) back and forth that captured all the viewpoints I'd consider worth considering.
Some key points for you to remember in this discussion:
1. HEAVY, HEAVY astroturfing is going on in the public debate. All the usual suspects are using all the usual political tricks to push their positions. Try to look past all that.
2. "Neutral" means different things to different people, ergo "net neutrality" means different things to different people, and that leads to folks talking right past each other.
3. This is really about money, and business models. Most of the real players in this discussion are trying to find a way to maximize their profit and shift costs to everyone else. At the end of the day, make no mistake, you the end customer are going to be the one who pays for what you use. The question really comes down to how that money is going to get from you to the coffers of various companies.
4. ISPs' business models are broken. The cost per Mb/s that they can get paid to move bits is dropping much faster than the cost per Mb/s to actually carry the traffic (that is, the capex costs of fiber + gear, plus the opex costs of people). There's a point in the not too distant future where ISPs quite literally can't make a profit from moving IP packets. So ISPs are scared, and trying to figure out how to get more revenue.
5. Content providers' business models are broken. The cost per Mb/s that they pay to move bits does not reflect the actual cost of carriage - see #4. Some CDN folks like L3 are willing to sell as a loss leader to capture the market share as step (1), and expect there to be a step (3): Profit! Similarly, content providers have set up business models that require those artificially low content delivery costs in order to work. Anyone here remember when the first Internet bubble burst and ad rates went to 1/10th what they used to be? Guess what happens when content delivery costs go to 10x what they used to be?
6. Customers expectations are broken. ISPs' marketing departments told us that we can have "unlimited" Internet access, which was always a bold lie, and history and competition gave us prices that kept falling and speeds that kept rising. We continue to expect to get more speed each year, be able to use an "unlimited" amount of it, and to pay the same or less for it. There is rather obviously a point at which the economics of that are fundamentally broken, but try retraining every Internet user around the world on that one.
7. More of the action is on mobile (cell phone network) data and is going to be in the future. The mobile carriers are already used to nickle-and-diming you, and they've got their customers mostly trained for that, and they are deathly afraid of their economics looking like that of ISPs (see #4 and #6). They are fighting hard and fighting now for the ability to keep their networks from becoming a commodity.
So what you have is a lot of brokenness trends that end up meaning something's going to have to change, and some folks are going to be unhappy (and or bankrupt). The debate is really about what we do now, and it's really all a matter of some trade-offs.
In my personal opinion, taking a broken marketplace and mixing government regulation and political ideology into that is unlikely to make things less broken.
Facebook
Twitter