https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03085...
What does this mean?
The idea that moving from <1mbps-10mbps to basically decent quality fiber speeds on your phone will result in reduced access to networks (via finely controlled interception and inspection) sounds stupid to me. And as I said it only makes sense in the developing world where there are actually customers who would buy such a thing, and even then only a tiny niche. But in the western world, to expect the entire market to be so anti-consumer and roll backwards like that, that still sounds like a fantasy to me.
I'm not dumb enough to say that giant oligopolies won't try but I highly doubt it will go beyond speculation let alone ever become anything close to 0.1% of the marketshare within the country, let alone globally. It's not a serious threat that can't be dealt with by existing means, even those that roll out well before it ruins anything real.
Meanwhile Indian scammers, who for a significant number we already have the addresses and names of and who use American phone services (as shown in the sublinked video) make hundreds of millions off westerners and literally nothing is being done by the US to a real and active anti-consumer threat that exists today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le71yVPh4uk
I will be concerned about US net neutrality when and/or if it actually becomes anything close to a real threat and I mean that (ie, companies proposing a serious rollout with pricing and other specifics instead of very broad speculation that they need it to capture more value from the market, which some dumb politician buys into).
This argument is bizarre because it’s already a thing! Just not in the US. For example, Telcel Mexico offers unlimited “social media” plans[1].
It’s not clear why US carriers have not moved forward with similar plans. Perhaps they’re waiting for the patchwork of state net neutrality laws to be repealed/overturned. But this isn’t some purely hypothetical business model.
[1] https://www.telcel.com/