Your analysis overlooks the fact that in many instances the “content providers” and the “distributors” are one in the same (e.g. Comcast owns NBC).
The point of net neutrality is simply to prevent joint ISP/content-providers or cabals formed by ISPs and content providers from functioning as a vertical trust to prevent other content-providers from having equal access to the market or to suppress entrance of competing ISPs which can’t provide access to the vertical trust’s content on equal terms.
Contrary to what most FReepers seem to think net neutrality per se is a good thing, being a pro-market regulation. Whether the Obama administration managed to get it right or to implement something else in the name of net neutrality remains to be seen. The devil is always in the details and the “400 pages of regulations” which strangely have an item in their index beginning on page 583, and had previously been describes as 700 pages, have enough room to house a whole hell of freedom killing devils. No one, however, in anything I have read has actually managed to find one.
Why should all data be treated equally?
Oh come on, you can do better than “cabals”. Why not “mustache twiddling robber barons”?
I talked to my pal Popeye about these wonderful new govt. regulations.
He says, “It’s spinach, and to hell with it.”
(Go ‘cats!)