The ISPs themselves don't want to be classed as common carriers because they'll have to divest their content production divisions if they do.
I doubt that's really it. I'd be shocked if they aren't separate corporate entities already, for more or less the exact legal reason of elimination of conflict of interest issues. Companies do this all the time (or are required to do so by some legal action) and they don't have to be named common carriers for this to happen. Simple anti trust rules already do this.
I really do think that the whole net neutrality thing is more of a bait and switch deal. It's claimed to be needed to address some kind of unfair competition practices, but as I stated, existing anti-trust laws already do that. The real reason (IMHO) is that some people just want more government regulation on industries. Sounds silly, but there it is. The folks in government derive their ***** sizes based on how large a domain of things their department controls, and there's a segment of the population that has some kind of security blanket thing with increased government control. They just are scared of the "free market", and thus imagine all sorts of terrible things that it could do, and no amount of showing them that it's not happening will talk them down from this belief.
Honestly, when I look at the proposals for net neutrality, my usual response is "why do people think this is needed?". And when I look at the near hysteria engaged in by proponents, I kinda can't help by conclude that it's not, but that if you scare enough people about something, they'll just blindly allow you to do whatever the **** you want. There is zero need for what they are proposing. Zip. Zero. Nada. The only thing it accomplishes is to impose unnecessary regulation on an industry that has an amazing track record of massively positive outcomes in the absence of oppressive government regulation.
I don't think the goal of those pursuing net neutrality is really to damage the internet, or reduce its usefulness and "free" nature. I just honestly believe that most people don't know better and are being talked into supporting something that will ultimately hurt them in the long run. It's like rallying grade school kids to support a cause in opposition to doing homework or taking those high stress tests. That might sound great to the kids in school, but they aren't really better off if they win that one, are they? I kinda see this the same way. Edited, Feb 19th 2014 3:54pm by gbaji