
The FCC Wants to Eliminate Net Neutrality Protections. We Can't Let That Happen - sinak
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/fcc-wants-eliminate-net-neutrality-protections-we-cant-let-happen
======
squozzer
Some of us actually worked in telcom when this problem started. The telcos
(aka last-mile owners) really DID want to charge the Netflixes of the world
for "backhaul." And they wanted to use their networks as leverage for their
own products. More than one VP mentioned such desires in their talks with
employees.

This situation was more drastic than Microsoft's favoring of Internet Explorer
back in the mid-90s, for two reasons - 1) It was much less transparent; 2)
Most homes have only one broadband provider in their area, or at best, one
relatively fast provider and one not so fast. The main barrier to entry seems
to be the cost of deploying plant - a figure I heard a VP give was 1500 USD
per home passed - not installed. Witness Google Fiber's retreat from the
market.

So the argument of consumer choice, even assuming perfect information of a
provider's offerings, rings a bit farcial at present.

The scenario mentioned earlier -- shaking down popular services under threat
of throttling or blocking -- might be countered by acquisition -- say, Google
(600B USD) buying AT&T (250B USD) -- but this assumes the telcos wouldn't
successfully deploy anti-acquisition tactics, both financial and political.

Before you trash this as anti-telco propaganda, I understand that businesses,
especially public companies, have a fudiciary duty to their shareholders,
which one can reasonably interpret as doing everything in their power, in
compliance with the law, to make money. That includes legal political
maneuvers such as lobbying. It's up to consumers to make our voices heard,
blah blah blah.

Another interesting twist in this problem is common carrier status. Does the
current legal climate impose risks for moving to a different regime?

------
kirykl
The greatest impact I see isn't really the price, its probably priced today
pretty close to the what full bundle pricing would be without NN.

The real danger is creating an impenetrable barrier to entry. Most people wont
want or need full bundle, and will settle for just Facebook/Snap and Wikipedia
tiers, making it impossible for startups to reach these customers.

The startup costs to entering one of these tiers would be similar to creating
your own TV network. Allowing monopolies to push their tax onto the market
effectively kills the market.

------
pshapiro99
I do not like the gutting of fish. I do not like the gutting of net
neutrality. I will not stay quiet, said Sam I am.

------
justforFranz
Watch out for FUDsters.

------
kahrkunne
The US net neutrality system is a fast track to government regulation of the
Internet. If you want to keep the Internet free, oppose it.

~~~
killbrad
Oppose net neutrality to ensure an open internet? Are you sure you understand
what net neutrality is?

~~~
kahrkunne
Yes, are you sure you understand what the legal situation for the Internet is
under the current US system? I'm all for net neutrality, but _NOT_ the way
it'd being done now.

~~~
chromox
How is it being done now?

------
joeblow9999
Net Neutrality is a joke. It's a scam and 100% certain to result in major
existing players using NN rules to prevent competition. Anyone with a modicum
of understanding of regulated markets can see this.

~~~
chromox
You said a lot without providing even simple arguments for anything you said.

Net neutrality is the idea that no matter the content of a message sent over
the internet it should be treated the same as any other message.

The equivalent for power/water utility service would be that you can use
power/water for anything in your house and you will pay the same price per
unit you consume.

Imagine if power/water companies were allowed to charge different prices for
drinking water compared to dish washer water. Or your power company charges
you a different rate for A/C than your refrigerator. That's power/water
companies without neutrality.

Do you want an Internet provider charging you more for using your preferred
streaming service over using their video streaming service? In a world without
net neutrality that's what you will get. You will end up paying for the
internet like we currently pay for cable channels. Websites will be packaged
into bundles and if you want something from another bundle... To bad you have
to buy the entire bundle.

~~~
vivekd
>Do you want an Internet provider charging you more for using your preferred
streaming service over using their video streaming service? In a world without
net neutrality that's what you will get. You will end up paying for the
internet like we currently pay for cable channels. Websites will be packaged
into bundles and if you want something from another bundle... To bad you have
to buy the entire bundle.

Can't they already do this now? Imagine an ISP provides a browser or even a
browser plugin as a part of their service and certain websites will not work
properly unless you are using that particular browser.

Imagine they give discounts to customers that use preferred sites over other
sites.

I don't think they can do much more than this with net neutrality and they,
should they wish, already have the power to do so now. It seems like the
reason they don't do this is because there isn't much motivation for them to
do so, artificially restricting their services would cause them to lose money
to providers that don't artificially restrict services.

~~~
killbrad
No, they cannot do that now _because_ of net neutrality.

~~~
vivekd
But what rule or law exactly, I don't see anything in the internet freedom act
of 2009 or anything else that would prevent them from taking these steps. Is
this whole net neutrality debate a case of legislators not understanding
technology and technologists not understanding legislation.

