To the editor:
The confusion surrounding net neutrality is by design. I could say net neutrality sounds innocuous, but then most people would not know that what I meant was net neutrality sounds harmless, and therein lies the obfuscation. Most people think that net neutrality means that the internet will be neutral, free and unfettered, like it is now and how it should remain. But the political and legal designation of net neutrality means anything but neutral.
What net neutrality is trying to accomplish is to have the internet re-classified as a Title II telecommunications entity, which would put the internet under the regulatory control of the government, just like the phone company. If enacted, net neutrality would then allow the government to tax it or charge fees on it, just like your cellphone bill. You only need to look at your cellphone bill or your home phone bill to see the lengthy and expensive list of fees and state and local taxes to know how exorbitant they already are.
All people need to do is ask themselves this question: When I look at my internet bill, do I want to see Universal Service fee, administrative charge, regulatory charge, infrastructure maintenance fee, state excise tax, city tax, end user common line fee, connectivity fee, regulatory recovery fee and local excise tax?
Net neutrality is not about the internet being neutral, it's about charging fees and taxes on your internet bill. Using the word neutral was just a way of neutralizing opposition to a massive new tax scheme.