The openess of the Internet depends on open no essential leg of the broadband network-of-networks between user’s local area or neighborhood area network (NAN) being open.
Wireless Wide-Area Network broadband is being positioned as the most common connection between ISPs/ASPs and the public. Monopolistic advantage presses consolidation down to 2 or three nationwide operators. Because of the capital-intensive nature of the mobile/ICT industry, the control over media and other content almost becomes a foregone conclusion: it puts a capital squeeze on any operator who may wish to compete on the basis of being more open.
What is missing in advocacy of the open Internet?
In my opinion, emphasis needs to be placed on the benefits and costs of open access vs. controlled pipes that the greater business community must pay. The most open form of connectivity is that controlled by the user: the local wired and wireless network including WiFi.
Technologies that make it possible for very wide and multiple frequency bands of spectrum to be used in harmony to deliver high capacity as low cost offers the counter to the special interest push against net neutrality.
It has become almost too late: One way to manage the pervasive connectivity of wireless to promote net neutrality is by organizing access to spectrum as a coordinated licensed+unlicensed or ‘licensed light’ arrangement. This is shown feasible by the combined use of 2.4 GHz WiFi and licensed mobile: by opening up a reasonably useful band of spectrum to local area wireless, regulators, to the surprise of licensed operators, created the most popular and universally adopted band in the world. In order to counteract the already present monopolistic industry tendencies, however, regulators must ensure co-use of new bands. The way to do that is to push forward with co-use schemes such as was crafted for by the former US FCC for the 3.5 GHz band.