I believe the term “net neutrality” may be misleading.
IMHO this is an issue of communications discrimination with effects on competition and free speech.
what “net neutrality” was meant, related to avoiding that those who control a resource do not use such power to orientate user choices, with prejudice to those who rely on such resource to conduct their activity.
OTTs fear that network providers alter choices using their control of the network and hence push for the network being “neutral”. Telcos shouldn’t have discrimination at the basis of their businesses
(even if there are alternatives, competition it is not a solution in itself, as switching providers is a burden for the user)
OTTs recognize it, that’s why the call for “net neutrality”
but OTTs themselves tend to use their control of their resources in order to orientate user choices. think for example of app stores control.
(even if there are alternatives, it is not a solution in itself, as switching devices is a burden for the user)
persons use tech tools for social and economic relationships.
to preserve free speech, freedom of choice and competition, users should not be influenced in their choices by gatekeepers at any level (network, device, application).
IMHO on top of “network neutrality” we should have “device neutrality”, the right to freedom of choiceof the apps, content and services the user wants to use, that cannot be limited by device or OS manufacturers.
and, at the application layer, in order to foster in-market competition (and not for-market competition exploiting continued financial doping, network effects and lockins) we should have profile portability, interconnection and interoperability.
BTW, this is how the Internet was built and how competition has been introduced in telephony.