
It's Now Clear None of the Supposed Benefits of Killing Net Neutrality Are Real - sixtypoundhound
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gyab5m/its-now-clear-none-of-the-supposed-benefits-of-killing-net-neutrality-are-real
======
syn0byte
The public has the same attention span of a goldfish. The rules were never
going to work the way everyone assumed.

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-
per...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-
promise)

[http://time.com/82409/wheeler-net-neutrality/](http://time.com/82409/wheeler-
net-neutrality/)

[https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/tom-wheeler-net-
neutr...](https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/tom-wheeler-net-
neutrality-114785) [http://time.com/74703/net-neutrality-fcc-rules-plan-
angers-a...](http://time.com/74703/net-neutrality-fcc-rules-plan-angers-
advocates/)

But then 2016 and suddenly we got hit with an MIB neurolizer and Wheeler was
the hero we all wanted, not the shill the lobbyists bought.

~~~
akhilcacharya
Except...there was actually a difference between the perceptions of his tenure
and his actual tenure...

------
johnp271
Isn't is also clear, in fact more clear, that none of the doomsday scenarios
of killing net neutrality were real either?

~~~
tabtab
Because states were threatening local versions of NN. But many lawmakers want
to take away states rights for that.

~~~
BoorishBears
>Because states were threatening local versions of NN.

Not even a little bit. Do you really believe that?

It's because those scenarios were just as outlandish and uninformed as those
against net neutrality.

Premium tweets were never going to be a thing, blocking Netflix unless you pay
extra wasn't going to be a thing. It was just drivel.

I honestly feel like half these things started as satire, but the larger
public (that has no idea how this stuff works ) adopted it as their rhetoric.

~~~
tabtab
Re: _It 's because those scenarios were just as outlandish and uninformed as
those against net neutrality._

Both "sides" often exaggerate their points; that's politics 101. That doesn't
mean that all of their predictions will be entirely wrong.

Re: _blocking Netflix unless you pay extra wasn 't going to be a thing_

How do you know they wouldn't eventually do that? If they have competing
content, it would be profitable for them to charge more for competitor
content. Do I need to make a spreadsheet for you to show you why? Why would
they otherwise skip profits?

~~~
BoorishBears
> Why would they otherwise skip profits?

If all you had to do to make profits was impose whatever outlandish pricing
models pop into your head, everyone would do it and internet would cost
infinity dollars.

No one would actually pay this. There'd be mass outrage and as much as the
memes like to imply Ajit Pai works for Comcast, the FCC would easily be forced
to step in (no blanket net neutrality law doesn't mean the FCC isn't allowed
to step in when needed).

It's in the best interests of the ISP to not do egregious things that force
the FCCs hand or stir up public outrage.

~~~
tabtab
Re: _" If all you had to do to make profits was impose whatever outlandish
pricing models pop into your head, everyone would do it and internet would
cost infinity dollars."_

No, because everybody can and do make short cat videos such that they are a
dime a dozen, and thus can rarely demand a premium. But sitcoms are social
events such that everyone wants to see what everyone is talking about, giving
them the ability to charge a premium over garage-made sitcoms. Nor can Joe
YouTube form his own regional sports team; franchises such as NFL would sue.
(A few break-out YouTube stars can charge or add more ads due to this social
networking premium.)

Re: _" No one would actually pay this."_ \- Historically people have and do
pay a premium when they have no other realistic choice. Sorry, but the long
history of oligopolies and monopolies shows you are wrong.

Re: _" It's in the best interests of the ISP to not do egregious things that
force the FCCs hand or stir up public outrage."_

Too many CEO's think short-term: get mine _now_ , the future is somebody
else's problem. The cable industry has a customer satisfaction record second
worse of ALL industries, just behind airlines. It took crying babies and lost
luggage to not be 1st.

------
beezischillin
Disbanding regulations when companies are that much dug in to a market where
there can't reasonably be any competition speaks of extremely anti-taxpayer
corporatism, especially when these companies are receiving tax money from the
government. I'm leaning towards thinking that the FCC is due some sort of
investigation into its activities...

I'm usually not a fan of regulation but it really needs to be said that when
huge companies that are often bigger than a lot of the world's government
basically come to own huge chunks of critical infrastructure, what other
bargaining chip does the average tax payer have to have their interests
represented?

That being said, the article mentioning that Verizon is cutting 10k people
from its media arm is disingenuous. It has nothing to do with net neutrality,
it's a case of large companies misjudging the market for VP-funded,
artificially grown blog companies. It has nothing to do with anyone's
infrastructure. A multi-national with multiple arms in multiple lines of
business will make decisions independent of its own arms and dependent on the
market.

------
jfengel
It seems premature to claim that it's "clear". It's only been a year. We're
talking about the major providers, who can only be expected to move so fast,
either to expand things or to fall apart. Neither the best nor the worst cases
materialized.

I'd say it's sufficient to leave the burden of proof on those who demanded the
change, to at least defend the notion that great improvements are coming. At
the very least a risk occurred without any payoff. But it seems to me that
there is still plenty of time for both the risks and rewards to materialize.

------
johnp271
Shouldn't those who said the world would end with the killing of net
neutrality be asked why the world has not ended, also why there has been no
noticeable change? If you are reading this now, your action proves that all
the claims of those who predicted disaster were nonsense and... dare I say,
fear-mongering.

------
simonblack
LOL. Follow the money.

People only want a change if it benefits them in some way. Who hated Network
Neutrality? What was in it for them?

Call me 'old and cynical' if you like. The older I have become, the more
cynical I have become. It was warranted.

------
tabtab
Making oligopolies even _more_ "oligopolic" rarely improves the lives of
consumers. Almost any economist not in the back pockets of large corporations
will agree with this assessment.

------
bsenftner
As far as I can tell, Ajit Pai is simply a talking ass.

~~~
hhanesand
My reaction exactly...

------
yummypaint
It was always clear

