Both your references and and your thesis are defective.
Just linking to HuffPo to support your statement demonstrates a preference for propaganda rather than argument based on technical facts. Nobody with any sense believes anything they read in HuffPo without thoroughly checking it out, including general searches of alternative references.
I actually read the “technical” basis linked in their article, and while I didn’t find any actual technical untruths, much of the interpretation, opinion, and propaganda is highly defective, and doesn’t follow from the “facts” they present.
The most egregious was to mislabel the Title II redefinition as “light touch”. This is a standard tactic in leftist and MSM propaganda (also not unknown in rightist propaganda), taking a label out of context and using it wrong knowing that most readers won’t know the difference.
Under net neutrality you can set up point to point links just fine, and you can even rate limit them for specific customers, you simply cannot dictate how your customer uses the bandwidth they’re paying for through that link.
Even if this were true, and I haven’t been able to find any proof that it is, it remains a limitation on innovative flexibility in providing both backbone-type and ISP services. And, given that the original trigger was just that case (as linked and excerpted above), I find it hard to believe.
It’s unavoidable that flexibility for innovation in one part of a system like the Internet depends on forbidding some sorts of flexibility in others. The problem with heavy-handed impositions like the mislabeled “net neutrality” is that it achieves needed rigidity by freezing whole sectors of the market.
Sort of like a cast that freezes your shoulder, elbow, and whole hand to treat a broken finger bone.
A real light-touch approach to problems of the sort mentioned in the “technical” propaganda linked above would be specific regulations aimed at specific issues. And given that the courts had found the FCC lacked some needed authority (mentioned here):
Rather than support legislation that would have reversed the court decision, Obama and his technophobic followers joined with “edge” providers like Netflix and Google to impose a completely different standard by calling it “net neutrality”.
The correct solution (IMO, of course) would have been to add a new category to the underlying legislation defining Internet Last Mile providers and specifying what authority the FCC does and does not have and what principles and philosophies they should use in regulating it.
Given that “net neutrality” has now been reversed, and with a Republican Congress and President, it might now be feasible for the FCC, ISP’s, and edge providers to work together to produce clear, predictable, legislation to this end.
And, while they’re at it, perhaps they should extend individual 1st Amendment protections to Social Media and content aggregator services.