How is this different from the last "net neutrality" mess? I remember shortly after commercial activity on the internet came under the purview of the FCC, all t

How is this different from the last "net neutrality" mess? I remember shortly after commercial activity on the internet came under the purview of the FCC, all these mobile carriers started offering deals, T-Mobile in particular offered "YouTube doesn't count against your data cap" and basically we got the opposite of what we were sold with the pitch "net neutrality". Then, when online commerce was restored to being under the purview of the FTC, all those special deals stopped. No ISP gave special fast lane access to any content service provider. Perhaps "net neutrality" is a lie, like "patriot act"? What we hear when we hear the term is not what lawmakers mean. We hear "ISPs must treat all traffic the same" (except for content with a DMCA takedown notice, of course) but what they mean is "move regulatory authority over commercial activity online from the FTC to the FCC." I'm curious why this, the crux of the matter, is never addressed in these articles. In any case, it seems to me like we get more net neutrality when the FTC is in charge of the commerce. Commerce online seems to be much more neutral when the FTC is in charge, to me at least. I don't think it's a stretch to say that big multinational corporations like Alphabet want the FCC to regulate the internet for selfish reasons, and if I have to guess, I'd guess that it's because they don't want to fall under the FTCs regulations pertaining to anticompetitive behavior.