I listened to his many pontifications about net-neutrality at that time.
His concern was not the theory and practice of "net-neutrality".
It was that "net-neutrality" was being used by various industry lobbyists and politicians at that time to justify the creation of a definition of "lawful traffic".
By their definition, only "lawful traffic" would be subject to neutrality.
Traffic that was not deemed "lawful traffic" would not be treated the same and could be shaped and blocked.
It was at the time that Pirate Bay was under constant legal attack (2015) and BitTorrent was the "unlawful traffic".
IMO this was a good take that not many journalists paid attention to.
His concern was not the theory and practice of "net-neutrality".
It was that "net-neutrality" was being used by various industry lobbyists and politicians at that time to justify the creation of a definition of "lawful traffic". By their definition, only "lawful traffic" would be subject to neutrality. Traffic that was not deemed "lawful traffic" would not be treated the same and could be shaped and blocked.
It was at the time that Pirate Bay was under constant legal attack (2015) and BitTorrent was the "unlawful traffic".
IMO this was a good take that not many journalists paid attention to.