Glimmer of hope or dying embers? Net neutrality flares up again

Net neutrality is back in the headlines, instigating ferocious fears and angry arguments everywhere, from dive bars in DC to sushi-vegan fusion bistros in San Francisco. Theories abound as to what will happen and even what transpired that fateful day when the DC appeals court maybe smoked one too many and struck down the FCC's standing open Internet rules, which had governed the behavior of slavering big-business ISP wolves for the last several years, keeping them from devouring both consumers and each other.

This news mostly made headlines last month, but it's back on many a digitized page 1 because Democrats in both houses of Congress just introduced a bill they say will save Net neutrality for the foreseeable future. Sponsored by California representatives Henry Waxman and Anna Eshoo, the Open Internet Preservation Act of 2014 stands almost no chance of success -- mainly because the Republicans, who control the House, have already vowed to hunt it down and kill it like poachers clubbing baby seals.

Which brings up all kinds of questions: Are Republican evil, corporate-owned hunchbacks who believe in "legitimate rape," while Democrats are haloed do-gooders stymied at every turn by nefarious monsters they can't overcome? Or has this issue been on the table for years and the Democrats are only now pushing it for political advantage? Does it even matter since both parties' campaign coffers are stuffed with money from the same ISP/telecomm companies anyway?

Also, is Net neutrality a relic of the past, and should we expect to pay double for what barely passes as third-world broadband while being forced at wallet point to watch only FiOS or Comcast TV since Netflix is doomed to fade into low-QoS obscurity? It all depends -- stop me if you think you've heard this one before -- on whom you ask.
<snip>

http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/glimmer-of-hope-or-dying-embers-net-neutrality-flares-again-236271