> Wouldn't it make more sense to break up broadband ISP monopolies first?
No. The ISPs’ argument for breaking neutrality is the tech giants’ capturing of the majority of the profit pie. With competition, those margins should decrease. That, in turn, makes fighting net neutrality less lucrative.
Add on the fact that ISPs are more regulated, federally and at the state level (California can regulate Comcast in a way it can’t Google) and the more-imminent threat is revealed.
You must be joking. In the US, broadband ISPs are regional monopolies that can and do charge whatever they want while delivering lousy service. This happens while net neutrality is in place.
Without net neutrality, ISPs are now free to make whatever deals they want with content providers, double dipping, and providing fewer options for consumers.
AT&T is now offering uncapped access to their video services [1]. Without net neutrality, nothing stops them from throttling Netflix & charging Netflix money for "high speed access", thereby passing costs to the consumer. ISPs can profit more from their regional monopolies simply by forcing services like Netflix to pay more. Consumers will not benefit because the broadband ISP has no incentive to improve service or lower costs. They are regional monopolies.
No. The ISPs’ argument for breaking neutrality is the tech giants’ capturing of the majority of the profit pie. With competition, those margins should decrease. That, in turn, makes fighting net neutrality less lucrative.
Add on the fact that ISPs are more regulated, federally and at the state level (California can regulate Comcast in a way it can’t Google) and the more-imminent threat is revealed.