
We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality - ds9
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-net-neutrality/
======
ScottWhigham
What I don't get is on, on one hand, you have the CEO (was it Verizon?) saying
"Americans don't want gigabit internet" and continuing to build out these
20-40mbps networks, yet trying to serve TV/video through IP as well. I'm
trying to understand the long game here but I'm struggling. The only thing I
can think of is that they're trying to get us thinking that 20-40mbps is
"worth" $40/month therefore when we finally get 1gbps, they can charge
$150/mth (or something to that effect).

~~~
aclevernickname
They're trying to prolong the inevitable death of television.

------
jmccree
Net neutrality as it's discussed now focuses on the wrong thing. We need
neutral last mile with the ISP of our choice. There are no issues with lack of
competition if you are inside major meet me rooms. The only reason
att,verizon,etc can have this stranglehold is their government granted
monopoly over the last mile.

------
bhewes
What happens when Google, Netflix, Microsoft wise up and start charging AT&T
and Verizon to access their services? This is how cable works, Comcast pays
Fox, ESPN. This will backfire on Verizon and AT&T.

------
c0ur7n3y
This is nothing but bald-faced rent seeking. Middle-men setting up toll booths
on a "limited" resource. Limited of course, only by their own investment. The
mathematics of this are terrifying. Broadband should be a public utility.

------
tn13
This is a slippery slope.

When I see people making seemingly irrational decisions I tend to think that
there is some information that I don't have but is available to those CEOs who
are making these decisions.

Internet businesses have grown like anything in last two decades and we
haven't really fully exploited its potential. What Verizon and AT&T are doing
is basically killing a Golden goose. AT&T's core strength is to lay out those
cable, build towers and give internet endpoints to consumers. AT&T's knowledge
about what people can potentially do with those endpoints is as good as an
Indian farmer's knowledge about flying planes.

End of net neutrality will add friction to new ideas getting successful. It
will also mean internet will have less and less meaning to end consumer
eventually leading to a scenario where both internet businesses and ISPs will
lose.

For example I have been using a prepaid AT&T card with Google Nexus because I
find the contract based shit and expensive data plans nothing but thuggery. I
am not willing to live without 3G, 4G and whatever comes next because At&T
pricing does not make sense to me (though I can afford it).

------
mullingitover
This whole attempted money grab is a real howler. AT&T and Verizon are already
getting paid fairly from their subscribers. The subscribers are paying for
YouTube/Netflix/et al to be available to them. Further, YouTube/Netflix/et al
are all paying their own respective access fees. Everyone today is getting
paid fairly. So while the argument on the surface is about something that's
somewhat esoteric, what it really boils down to is that the ISPs want to bill
twice for the same service.

~~~
api
Not only that, these companies have absorbed state and local subsidies to
build out their infrastructures based on the promise that they would provide
service to the public good. That invalidates any faux-libertarian defense they
might have-- their networks are now in part public property.

------
amarv1n
Bhewes may be right--but ESPN is special. Most companies, including YC
companies, would have to pay. Only the very very few could charge the
carriers.

~~~
bhewes
Smaller companies already do pay when they buy bandwidth. I don't see the
economics working for AT&T and Verizon to charge startups. Maybe some kind of
tier bandwidth general cheaper bandwidth and "network optimized" bandwidth for
some additional fee.

But beyond that I see the internet playing out like cable but on a larger
scale. A simple winner take all game with almost all network capacity
dedicated to a few services.

~~~
amarv1n
The case centered on the question of whether those companies would have to pay
twice--once to buy bandwidth from their own ISP and then again to get through
a toll to the end user, paying originating ISP then the terminating one.

~~~
bhewes
Interesting, I would suspect then that AT&T and Verizon would go after the
ISPs to pay up.

~~~
bhewes
Though this also makes me wonder when AT&T and Verizon will each buy search
engines.

------
memracom
It's too late for the telecoms companies to do this. If they try, then Google,
Facebook and Amazon will do an end run around them by building their own
telecoms networks offering services to all comers and competing against the
telecoms companies. And the telecoms companies will all be gone within 3
years.

~~~
api
It's in the best interest of Google, Facebook, and Amazon to play ball here.
These restrictions will make it harder for DuckDuckGo, Medium, or Craigslist
to compete with them.

------
gz5
Long-term the only way to avoid this war is to promote opening of spectrum
(both licensing and software defined spectrum sharing).

Until then the local access duopoly has too much power, at least in the US,
and both well intended and not so well intended legislation will only hamper
the market.

~~~
amarv1n
They all face the same problem: a captured FCC. I agree on opening up spectrum
(spread the gospel!) and wish we could adopt policies against the duopoly like
open access to the wires. Yochai Benkler has written on both if you're
interested (you're probably aware)

