There is no shortage of scaremongers who believe that the future of the Internet — and by some extension, humanity — relies on keeping the Internet an even, open and neutral platform for the flow of information.

It can be tough to tell whether the concern is legitimate. After all, the grim picture of an Internet that more closely resembles cable TV is a far-off notion compared to the open platform enjoyed today.

Or maybe not. A look at the wireless industry now makes the doomsayers look more like soothsayers.

Mobile carriers have begun to give the world a picture of what a net neutrality-free Internet could look like. Wireless companies have slowly but surely begun to roll out plans that favor certain content providers or entirely limit access to particular sites and apps.

Regulation of this activity is tricky. It is an area that FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has said is under supervision but "should not be prohibited out of hand." Wheeler has not been shy about going after companies for limiting consumers' access, but has little legal basis for going after the deals made between companies. (The FCC declined to comment for this story.)

Here's a rundown of what T-Mobile, AT&T and Sprint have been up to:

T-Mobile and music: The "un-carrier" has looked for ways to attract younger consumers that tend to do data-intensive smartphone activities. Streaming music from the likes of Spotify tends to take a toll, so T-Mobile decided to stop counting it against data plans.

AT&T and sponsored data: Sponsored data is the term that usually refers to companies paying providers to give consumers preferential access to certain websites and content, often by not counting the activity against consumer data plans. This type of plan has been in the works for some time, but finally launched in early 2014. Re/code reported that it has some smaller customers, but no big names as of yet.

Sprint and its Facebook/Twitter plan: This might be the most disconcerting plan of them all. With this deal, customers don't have access to the Internet; they have access to channels. Customers can choose to have access to Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest or Instagram (or all four for an additional charge). Sprint bills the deal as a way for customers to have more choice while also serving to provide access for lower income customers.

As these deals pile up, a less-than-rosy picture of the future of mobile Internet begins to emerge. Fred Wilson, a prominent venture capitalist, recently took to his blog to discuss how these plans can seem advantageous. He focused on "zero rating," in which companies pay providers so that their content does not count against data plans.

"The pernicious thing about zero rating is that it is marketed as a consumer-friendly offering by the mobile carrier — 'we are not charging you for data when you are on Spotify,'" he wrote in a post.

"But what all of this zero rating activity is setting up is a mobile internet that looks a lot more like cable TV than our wide open Internet," he wrote. "Soon, a startup will have to negotiate a zero rating plan before launching because mobile app customers will be trained to only use apps that are zero rated on their network."

It's not that wireless Internet might end up becoming tiered for everyone, but freedom could become an expensive feature of smartphone plans.

Mobile broadband is regarded by the FCC differently from "fixed" broadband, which is Internet service used by devices at certain endpoints, usually computers. The most important distinction comes from the 2010 Open Internet Order, which detailed that mobile had to abide by transparency requirements but not other rules that helped ensure net neutrality for fixed broadband.

The order meant that wireless companies like AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and Sprint could strike deals with companies that would prioritize certain content.

This might not have seemed as big of a deal in 2010, as mobile data usage remained a fraction of the larger Internet. That changed as smartphones matured, networks grew faster and more companies tailored content for the mobile experience.

To capitalize on this growth, mobile broadband providers have rolled out new data plans that put caps on usage and charge for overages. Many plans once offered limited voice minutes and text messages with unlimited data. That has now flipped, with data capped and voice and text an unlimited afterthought.

Data caps are not unique to wireless companies, and are on their way to a broader landline market. Comcast has been testing such plans and its chief executive has already said "usage-based billing" is on its way.

The combination of data caps and sponsored content deals suddenly make the dystopian Internet future more believable. With Internet consumption pushing more into mobile, the lack of rules ensuring equal access is providing some idea of what might happen if the FCC is unable to enforce net neutrality rules.

The result, unfortunately enough, looks a lot like a nightmare dreamt up by the most paranoid net neutrality advocates.