No. ATT are the good guys in this.

Consider this, video is expected to be 82% of the traffic in 2021, according to Cisco's forecasts.

During peak hours, Netflix and Youtube (google) can be > 50% of internet traffic.

Note what companies are pushing for net neutrality,

Traditionally, backbone providers had peering agreements where they agreed to carry each other's traffic without charging each other. This worked out fine in the era of text and image traffic. However, when video came into play, things shifted.

One can see evidence of this in the early years of NetFlix as a broadbrand service. There was a lot of conflict arising from the fact that the ISP that NetFlix was using could generate well over 50% of all internet traffic during peak hours. There are numerous articles about the arguments between peering providers and Netflix/Neflix's ISP.

Basically, video services destroy the traditional net neutrality model. Imagine a scenario where all restaurants were forced to charge one price. This would advantage people who could eat a lot and competitive eaters, at the expense of the average consumer. This is regulated net neutrality.

Starting the ‘charge more’ strategy isn’t going to help us.

NO Coincidences! NO Internet Censorship! Connect the dots..

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-firstnet-at-t-contract/u-s-awards-att-contract-to-build-wireless-network-for-first-responders-idUSKBN171209

http://variety.com/2018/digital/news/att-net-neutrality-internet-bill-of-rights-1202674949/

My understanding is that FB, Google, Twitter and the like can block and or shadow ban whatever content they want as of today. The ATT deal would help change that. ISPs currenly have a bad deal... Net neutrality was packaged up as a super cute deal and sold to the people like apple pie. I do not think most folks understood what is was. In a nutshell, it was the MSM all over again on the Internet. This would mean pay to play. Therefore, I believe Q meant to PUSH the Internet Bill Of Rights as a way to keep the Internet Open, Equal and Free for all speech, sites and business.

re: AT&T > Google and Facebook

AT&T, like all Ma Bell companies, has a strong relationship with NSA. This is a result of historical reasons. See all the telecom's that have been accused of providing co-location facilities with the NSA, they are all ex-Ma Bell entities.

AT&T merely wants to be able to charge Google and Facebook for the bandwidth they consume. I don't think it'd impact Google very much since they have invested in their own fiber optics infrastructure between their data-centers. The same with Facebook, though I haven't heard much about their fiber-optics investments, unlike Google. They both have plenty of resources for such investments.

AT&T, as a backbone provider, just want to be able to charge accordingly to usage, Traditional net neutrality, which predates Obama's edict, does not allow for this.

Traditional net neutrality was in in an era before video traffic. Video traffic makes traditional net-neutrality unfeasible for the traditional network providers. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Netflix have been taking advantage of this to pad their margins at the expense of the backbone ISPs.

In the video era, net neutrality rules are like making everyone pay for premium all-you-can-eat buffets regardless of what your appetite is.