You're probably being scammed on "net neutrality "

[nrc]

Google has whipped their social media minions into a frenzy and people are up arms that we need to "save the Internet". The truth is that nobody is fighting to "save the Internet." It's really a fight between the giant Internet providers and the giant Internet services over who is going to regulate the Internet and to what end. Neither of these factions has the best interests of consumers in mind.

https://thetrichordist.com/2017/07/12/have-you-been-suckered-on-net-neutrality-debate-by-google-and-big-tech/
https://thetrichordist.com/2017/12/01/thoughts-on-net-neutrality-from-down-here-in-the-coal-mine-guest-post-maria-schneider/

[SteveH]

Quotation of the day on net neutrality and the resistance to restoring Internet freedom… (http://www.aei.org/publication/quotation-of-the-day-on-net-neutrality-and-the-resistance-to-restoring-internet-freedom/)

An interesting take on net neutrality

[SteveH]

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/comcast.png

[Insomniac]

Consumers will always pay in the end, but if the ISPs have all the power, consumers will pay sooner and faster. In that sense. the giant Internet companies are not as problematic as the ISPs. If Comcast decides to "tax" Netflix, Netflix will pass that on to all their customers regardless of who their provider is. The ISP's responsibility should begin and end with providing the pipe. Net neutrality ensures that.

It would be a lot easier to believe the FCC is their primary argument didn't begin and end with net neutrality is stopping investment which is provably false.

How does getting rid of net neutrality in any way help the consumer?

[nrc]

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/comcast.png

And this is primarily a "last mile" problem. An ISP I can choose from at least a half dozen higher tier ISPs in any well connected data center. It's getting that connection from to the consumer's home that is the part that is cost prohibitive for entry to the market. It's the perfect storm of Federal, State, and even local regulation that prevents most people from having more than one broadband choice, or in some cases any at all.

[cameraman]

ATT & Verizon were blocked from starting zero-rated internet services back in January. You kill the current laws and that stuff will be back with a vengeance. This is what they want to do:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/svn9iXO9bovU9VNWCu48yASkAO0=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4252153/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpg

The current laws are the only thing that is stopping them.

[nrc]

Consumers will always pay in the end, but if the ISPs have all the power, consumers will pay sooner and faster. In that sense. the giant Internet companies are not as problematic as the ISPs. If Comcast decides to "tax" Netflix, Netflix will pass that on to all their customers regardless of who their provider is. The ISP's responsibility should begin and end with providing the pipe. Net neutrality ensures that.

What you're missing here is that streaming media users and providers are already not paying their fair share of the cost. Netflix is a voracious consumer of network bandwidth. Currently they consume over 30% of all Internet traffic. That number can be two or three times higher during peak hours on a residential network.

Network providers have to double or triple their bandwidth capacity just to serve Netflix and Youtube users. Without the ability to pass that cost on to users of those services it has to be borne by everyone.


It would be a lot easier to believe the FCC is their primary argument didn't begin and end with net neutrality is stopping investment which is provably false.

How does getting rid of net neutrality in any way help the consumer?

Investment in Internet service is not nearly what it needs to be. Speeds have improved but top tier ISPs are consolidating and last mile ISPs are investing only to consolidate and protect existing turf. Most Americans have at most two options for broadband. Almost a third have only one option. Nothing will benefit consumers more than creating an environment where ISPs are motivated to create competition.

Again, we're not talking about leaving ISPs unregulated to run amok, we're talking about them being regulated by the FTC just as they were for many years. The irony is that people are arguing that the FCC is best equipped to represent consumer interests in regulating ISPs when they utterly failed to do just that with those very same companies as cable providers.

Here's another story on this that covers both the pros and cons, but also specifically the way this is being marketed by the big Internet companies and primarily Google.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/28/one-law-professors-overview-of-the-confusing-net-neutrality-debate/?utm_term=.76ba9541851b

If you read nothing else, read "3. The social meaning of “net neutrality”".


The most confounding aspect of the contemporary net neutrality discussion to me is the social meanings that the concept has taken on. These meanings are entirely detached from the substance of the debate, but have come to define popular conceptions of what net neutrality means. They are, as best I can tell, wholly unassailable, in the sense that one cannot engage with them. This is probably the most important and intellectually interesting aspect of the debate – it raises important questions about the nature of regulation and the administrative state in complex technical settings.

[chop456]

Interesting that there are pay sites on there. I'm not going to pay for it once, let alone twice. :laugh:

[dirtyboy]

Hold on! I can get all this for only $5. Those are all my bookmarked sites. Who do I give my money to? 965

[Insomniac]

What you're missing here is that streaming media users and providers are already not paying their fair share of the cost. Netflix is a voracious consumer of network bandwidth. Currently they consume over 30% of all Internet traffic. That number can be two or three times higher during peak hours on a residential network.

Network providers have to double or triple their bandwidth capacity just to serve Netflix and Youtube users. Without the ability to pass that cost on to users of those services it has to be borne by everyone.

They aren't paying their fair share? They are purchasing all the bandwidth their services use. You're blaming streaming services because the cable provider charges customers for way more bandwidth than their network can handle? Most providers have varying speed tiers that also come with accompanying data limits and charges for overages. They already have a mechanism in place to charge the users directly based on their consumption. Now they want to charge the content providers for bandwidth (and access eventually?). cameraman's post is interesting if they decide to flip that equation on the customers instead, or if they go and do it both ways. Great way to make up for cord cutters!


Investment in Internet service is not nearly what it needs to be. Speeds have improved but top tier ISPs are consolidating and last mile ISPs are investing only to consolidate and protect existing turf. Most Americans have at most two options for broadband. Almost a third have only one option. Nothing will benefit consumers more than creating an environment where ISPs are motivated to create competition.

Again, we're not talking about leaving ISPs unregulated to run amok, we're talking about them being regulated by the FTC just as they were for many years. The irony is that people are arguing that the FCC is best equipped to represent consumer interests in regulating ISPs when they utterly failed to do just that with those very same companies as cable providers.

How does the removal of net neutrality change a company's decision to invest? I've been living here for 14 years and there has been $0 in last mile investment. If anything, it has gotten worse because I can now only get slower DSL than I had before! My Cox HSI bill has gone from $50/month to $80/month in 5 years for the same service. AT&T hasn't bothered to even lay any fiber for u-verse. Neither company is hurting for profits and they are here today. Is someone new going to come in and invest the money to fight over <25k customers?

I'm not talking about them running amok. If the FCC is so useless, why do they want to be regulated by the FTC instead? They're looking for better regulation from the FTC that favors consumers over businesses/profits?

If net neutrality had no affect on their business, they would not care about it. It is limiting their ability to make more money at the end of the day. Net neutrality is pro-consumer. Consumers always pay in the end whether it's fees, taxes, fines or any other cost of doing business, no company eats those costs. It's nice to argue that it's really a fight between the unfairly treated ISPs and the giant Internet behemoths, but the consumers will be pay as soon as the service providers can generate more revenue by doing nothing. Every company wants to minimize costs and maximize profits so of course they are going to fight over the regulation. For one side they're trying to keep their costs down and the other side is trying to increase profits. When the profits side wins that money will come from the consumers, not Google or Facebook or Netflix. Some companies will have a much harder time doing that like Facebook who don't charge customers to use their product. But as I said, companies are not in the business of eating costs.


Here's another story on this that covers both the pros and cons, but also specifically the way this is being marketed by the big Internet companies and primarily Google.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/28/one-law-professors-overview-of-the-confusing-net-neutrality-debate/?utm_term=.76ba9541851b

If you read nothing else, read "3. The social meaning of “net neutrality”".

Why is #3 so important to you? That's nothing new. People think that way on nearly everything now. Why would facts matter for net neutrality? I'm more interested in #1.

He said:


In the interest of disclosure, I am in the latter camp, primarily because, as I read it, the economic literature overwhelmingly shows that non-neutrality has potentially substantial benefits for consumers and slight risk of harm – and where that harm has occurred in the past we have been able to address it without recourse to strict ex ante rules.

I wish they would've pointed to some of that economic literature where consumers could substantially benefit because I have not seen it.

I don't think the sky is falling, but as I said earlier, if you remove net neutrality, it's extra revenue for doing nothing that ultimately comes from consumers. People have to make this so needlessly complex with theories on how if you have net neutrality then networks will expand or if you get rid of net neutrality investment will go up. Or start down slippery slope and doomsday scenarios.

It's not all that difficult to understand that with net neutrality Cox can't charge me or the content provider for bandwidth/access to specific content. Without it they can with little to no costs on their part. Why would Cox pass up on that revenue? Either I pay it directly to Cox or it works its way through the content providers. (I do get it'll be much easier for a pay service like Netflix versus say Google search to pass that cost on to me, but both still are in the business of making money.) The only thing stopping Cox is the FCC rules on net neutrality. Something is going to change after they are repealed. I don't know what, but I know it's going to cost me more somehow and that Cox and the like will be the biggest beneficiaries of it. The content providers will probably benefit because they can raise prices and blame ISPs very easily. They tried to stop it and all. I'd like to know how I benefit.

[SteveH]

very interesting article...

Charter brags about big speed boost—after saying Title II stalled investment (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/charter-brags-about-big-speed-boost-after-saying-title-ii-stalled-investment/)



Charter's statements to the FCC and investors mirror those made by other ISPs. When talking to the FCC, ISPs say the rules are investment killers; when talking to investors, ISPs aren't too bothered by Title II or the net neutrality rules. The discrepancy has provided ammunition to net neutrality supporters—for example, see, "Charter admits net neutrality didn't hurt broadband investment" in DSLReports.

[nrc]

Why is #3 so important to you? That's nothing new. People think that way on nearly everything now. Why would facts matter for net neutrality?

Item 3 is relevant because it's kind of the point of my thread.


The most confounding aspect of the contemporary net neutrality discussion to me is the social meanings that the concept has taken on. These meanings are entirely detached from the substance of the debate, but have come to define popular conceptions of what net neutrality means.

This is largely due to the efforts of a collection of "grassroots" organizations that are almost entirely funded and staffed by the big tech companies and people in their spheres of influence. Stoking outrage against "The Man" as represented by various industries other than their own is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's easy when people already consider them the bad guy and think they're getting something for nothing.

I'm not debating comments here chapter and verse because it's pretty much "wholly unassailable" as mentioned in the cited column. It's net neutrality as created by the FCC and common carrier status for ISPs or it's "the death of the Internet" and a "hellscape" for consumers.

But that's simply not the case. The head of the FTC (appointed under the previous administration) recognizes that and supports rollback of the the Title II classification.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1231563/mko_rif_comment_7-17-2017_final.pdf

So we'll have to agree to disagree. Just be sure to post your "I told you so" on the day before the Internet dies. :)

[Insomniac]

Item 3 is relevant because it's kind of the point of my thread.

This is largely due to the efforts of a collection of "grassroots" organizations that are almost entirely funded and staffed by the big tech companies and people in their spheres of influence. Stoking outrage against "The Man" as represented by various industries other than their own is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's easy when people already consider them the bad guy and think they're getting something for nothing.

I'm not debating comments here chapter and verse because it's pretty much "wholly unassailable" as mentioned in the cited column. It's net neutrality as created by the FCC and common carrier status for ISPs or it's "the death of the Internet" and a "hellscape" for consumers.

But that's simply not the case. The head of the FTC (appointed under the previous administration) recognizes that and supports rollback of the the Title II classification.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1231563/mko_rif_comment_7-17-2017_final.pdf

So we'll have to agree to disagree. Just be sure to post your "I told you so" on the day before the Internet dies. :)

OMG! A grassroots movement isn't grassroots? Outside, big money entities are funding this charade? Stoking outrage not based on facts but feelings? This is unheard of in America. :D

My comments were neither "death of the Internet" or "hellscape" related. You started this thread saying "Neither of these factions has the best interests of consumers in mind.". I agree they are concerned about their business/revenue/profit first, but from my perspective one "side" is better for consumers. I'd like to be wrong and everyone has 100 MBit Internet access for less than some people have it now in the near term and there is massive investment in broadband that this country has never seen. But if the businesses are looking out for #1, what's the case for that investment because net neutrality is gone?

A clarification that the FCC chairman was nominated as a commissioner and confirmed by the Senate under the previous administration. The FCC commissioners are a wholly political position in which no more than 3 may be affiliated with the same political party. The current administration designated Pai as chairman. And this is why we will get to have a continual ping-pong of policies.

[SteveH]

Congress took $101 million in donations from the ISP industry — here’s how much your lawmaker got (https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/11/16746230/net-neutrality-fcc-isp-congress-campaign-contribution)

[G.]

Yeah, I think I'm still pissed.

I got pissed when my tiny little ISP wouldn't allow ESPN3 to be connected, due to ESPN mandating that the ISP purchase the service as a bundle, same way the networks sell their channels to the cable companies.

I hate the cable company's business model.
I want free stuff.
Anyone got a Hulu login that I can borrow? :gomer:


What can we expect the future to look like for internet?

[cameraman]

You can expect Hulu to change, perhaps drastically, in a year or two when Disney finally takes full control.

[datachicane]

Let me make certain I've got this straight...

My ISP charges me every month for unlimited bandwidth at a given speed. If I want more speed, I pay them more money.

Years ago, my ISP charged me for a specific amount of bandwidth per month, but decided all on their own that they'd make more money by making it all-you-can-eat and raising their rates.

Now they have the chutzpah to claim that it's unfair that some of their customers use more bandwidth than others, under a structure they themselves invented, and use that as an excuse to charge the content providers for the privilege of delivering content to me at a speed for which I've already paid, if, in fact, they choose to deliver it at all. Rest assured, they tell me, we wouldn't dream of doing this thing for which we're explicitly asking for the ability to do, and even if we did, market forces would sort it out, despite the fact that the functional monopoly in many regions is precisely why regulation was on the radar in the first place (as opposed to, say, the wireless data market).

Sure, a cynic might argue that it's hard for market forces to do much without a functional market, but that cynic would clearly be a commie, so screw him. Also, they tell me, we'll invest all of that extra revenue into, umm, stuff you'll like, probably, maybe, because you'd really like to believe that despite the aforementioned lack of actual market forces pushing us to do anything more useful than lighting cigars with it. Which we totally wouldn't do, but you should let us, because we don't want to anyway, but definitely, explicitly let us.

[Insomniac]

You can expect Hulu to change, perhaps drastically, in a year or two when Disney finally takes full control.

I'd expect it to get enhanced further with the addition of the movie catalog and their plans to remove all content from Netflix. They are going to have a lot of content though. ABC, FOX, ABC Studios, FOX Studios, Movie Catalogs, ESPN, all their other cable entities. They will definitely have a powerful service as people transition to streaming from broadcast/cable. It will be interesting to see how much they restrict content to third party streaming platforms in favor of their own platform.

[SteveH]

https://i.imgur.com/qpMOo7L.jpg

no buffering, either :thumbup:

[TravelGal]

Let me make certain I've got this straight...

Sure, a cynic might argue that it's hard for market forces to do much without a functional market, but that cynic would clearly be a commie, so screw him. Also, they tell me, we'll invest all of that extra revenue into, umm, stuff you'll like, probably, maybe, because you'd really like to believe that despite the aforementioned lack of actual market forces pushing us to do anything more useful than lighting cigars with it. Which we totally wouldn't do, but you should let us, because we don't want to anyway, but definitely, explicitly let us.

For a minute there, I thought you were talking about the airline industry. :D:gomer:

[nrc]

Congress took $101 million in donations from the ISP industry — here’s how much your lawmaker got (https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/11/16746230/net-neutrality-fcc-isp-congress-campaign-contribution)

Sorry, this story is kind of silly.

First of all, reporting figures are based on 1989 to present? Seriously? They think a nickel spent in 1989, before the Internet was even widely available, is buying them a scintilla of influence on net neutrality now? Some of the companies that they list weren't even the same company through that span. AT&T didn't really have a broadband business for a large part of that time span. They don't really seem to understand who doesn't and doesn't support common carrier status and why. They include companies that support It's just kind of a ludicrous data set to use.

Of course if you're actually looking at the data you can see that they're admitting that their whole premise is nonsense. The congressional vote was along party - ie, philosophical lines - while the contributions are pretty evenly spread across both sides. So nearly half that money that is supposedly buying votes is just being flushed down the toilet. The Verge even admit that they ran an even more skewed version of these numbers previously that hid that fact entirely. Now they're just trusting that they can dump the whole load and you'll still read it the way that they want you to anyway.

But of course they're still hiding some relevant facts. Why don't they compare the same contribution data for the big tech companies and limit it to the time span when Title II net neutrality has been an issue?

[cameraman]

Salt Lake City is an example of why the claims of the likes of Comcast and Centurylink simply do not hold up to reality. For years Salt Lake City was a residential internet basket case. Comcast provided egregiously terrible service and glacially slow speeds and all Centurylink provided was DSL at 3 meg on a good day. That was it, no other providers and exactly zero investment by either company in infrastructure. And I mean none at all. This went on for years. In other parts of the valley where suburban sprawl was in full swing they were installing fiber or high speed cable but in the completely built up confines of Salt Lake proper they did absolutely nothing. Then two years ago Google came to town with the promise of fiber to every house in the city itself. The reaction was instantaneous. Overnight this city was swamped with underground cable drills and utility bucket trucks. Some of it was Google but the majority of it was Comcast & Centurylink building out as fast as they could to beat Google to the punch. So after having 3 meg DSL from Centurylink for over 15 years I now have 236 down/12.9 up cable service for $17/month less than the DSL. I went with Comcast because they were the first to actually hit my neighborhood. I know others in town with Centurylink and Google.

Point being there was nothing at all stopping either of those companies from installing high speed service in Salt Lake except the lack of competition. They had a closed market and they were not interested in fighting each other. The net neutrality laws either before or after had no influence on the situation at all. Now that it is gone our only saving grace will be Google who have committed to fiber up this entire city even if they don't make it to my neighborhood for another year or three. If Comcast decides to start throttling the services I use I'll simply switch to Google. It is actually far more likely that it will be when rather than if as Comcast was doing exactly that before the law was enacted.

And by the way it is most assuredly not unlimited bandwidth. There is a 1tb/mo cap. Exceed that cap and the bill is astronomical.

[nrc]

OMG! A grassroots movement isn't grassroots? Outside, big money entities are funding this charade? Stoking outrage not based on facts but feelings? This is unheard of in America. :D

My comments were neither "death of the Internet" or "hellscape" related. You started this thread saying "Neither of these factions has the best interests of consumers in mind.". I agree they are concerned about their business/revenue/profit first, but from my perspective one "side" is better for consumers. I'd like to be wrong and everyone has 100 MBit Internet access for less than some people have it now in the near term and there is massive investment in broadband that this country has never seen. But if the businesses are looking out for #1, what's the case for that investment because net neutrality is gone?

"Death of the Internet" and "hellscape" are common phrases used by those whipping up hysteria over the return of Internet regulation circa 2015.

If you want to see what happens to Internet service under the Title II regulation that was imposed to allow the FCC to rigorously regulate the Internet you need look no further than your public telephone network interface. Are you connected to it for DSL service? Probably not. Because the service you're connected to today was probably built under Title I ISP regulations and telephone carriers couldn't compete with that investment. Title II "common carrier" regulation sucked all the revenue out of that network leaving only a very high cost legacy network. So it was abandoned as even telecom providers directed their Internet investments into networks where they would be Title I regulated as ISPs.

The FCC tried to address this problem in 2005 when it reclassified DSL service to Title I regulation the same as other Internet Services but by that time it was far too late and carriers were pushing to abandon their legacy wireline networks entirely.

[nrc]

Point being there was nothing at all stopping either of those companies from installing high speed service in Salt Lake except the lack of competition. They had a closed market and they were not interested in fighting each other. The net neutrality laws either before or after had no influence on the situation at all. Now that it is gone our only saving grace will be Google who have committed to fiber up this entire city even if they don't make it to my neighborhood for another year or three. If Comcast decides to start throttling the services I use I'll simply switch to Google. It is actually far more likely that it will be when rather than if as Comcast was doing exactly that before the law was enacted.

You're absolutely correct that competition is the best thing for driving higher speeds, lower costs, and better service. The hurdle that prevents competition in broadband markets is the tremendous cost of the infrastructure. The amount of regulation, red tape, and bureaucracy involved in creating that infrastructure drives costs higher. Regulation on what an ISP can do with that infrastructure once they create it sets a ceiling on how they can recover that cost. The more regulation, the higher the floor and lower the ceiling. Eventually the margin becomes tight enough that it simply isn't worth the risk.

Google Fiber is proof of my point. You're lucky. Salt Lake City may have been their last fiber project. The Fiber project started out as a "See this ain't so tough" thumb in the eye for ISPs but now that the company has restructured in a way where divisions have to stand on their own, they can't justify the massive investment. So from now on when it comes to new markets "Google Fiber" will really be "Google Point to Point Wireless" and they'll focus on cherry picking multi-unit housing where they too can enjoy the benefits of minimal competition.

Every Google Fiber project was started under the old Title I ISP regulatory regime. Is it a coincidence that Google pulled the plug during the Title II regulatory period? Maybe. But regulatory uncertainty including things like rate controls hovering over your head subject to the regulatory agency's continued "forbearance" can't help when making those kinds of investment decisions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/technology/google-curbs-expansion-of-fiber-optic-network-cutting-jobs.html

One side benefit to Google's brief foray into fiber to the home is that it exposed a lot of the barriers to that kind of infrastructure investment, including the very local governments who are clambering for it. Local governments have historically been happy to maintain relationships with cable providers that ensconced them as virtual monopolies in their communities.

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

[gjc2]

When politicians use benign terms like “neutrality” I worry.

[stroker]

Okay, here's a stupid question. What's to stop the creation of Co-op internet service providers? Aside from the staggering initial investment?

[nrc]

Okay, here's a stupid question. What's to stop the creation of Co-op internet service providers? Aside from the staggering initial investment?

I don't know all the legal details of what classifies as an "ISP" in terms of regulation, but I believe the answer is yes, you could create a non-profit co-op for this purpose. Insert IANAL disclaimer here.

It wouldn't be practical for random people scattered around a city to connect directly, but for an apartment building, condo, or new housing development it would be possible. Some buildings do this now and bid out the service among ISPs. This is what Google so-called Fiber is focusing on now.

The cost would be reasonable if you were only dealing with light transactional users. That traffic pools very well so those are 1-2Mbps per users. But streaming video or heavy torrent users will burn 20Mbps of bandwidth per concurrent user or more. So where 200Mbps is enough for 200 light users, if you have just 20 concurrent Netflix viewers among those 200 then you'll need twice that or more.

So you either have to limit the bandwidth that streaming traffic can consume or make everyone pay twice as much so that 10% of your users can stream video.

[Insomniac]

Okay, here's a stupid question. What's to stop the creation of Co-op internet service providers? Aside from the staggering initial investment?

There are also municipally owned utilities in the US. They own the infrastructure and either provide the services themselves or lease out the usage. They can keep costs down by having providers compete to offer exclusive service or allow multiple providers to lease and compete.

[cameraman]

So you either have to limit the bandwidth that streaming traffic can consume or make everyone pay twice as much so that 10% of your users can stream video.

Current statistics have over 60% of internet users streaming video of some kind.

[datachicane]

So you either have to limit the bandwidth that streaming traffic can consume or make everyone pay twice as much so that 10% of your users can stream video.

Frankly, that's a BS argument. As I mentioned earlier, there's not a thing in the world preventing ISPs for charging for actual bandwidth consumed beyond their own marketing plans. Striking down net neutrality say nothing whatsoever about how much data can be consumed, but rather where that data originated. All smokescreens and obfuscation aside, the whole point is to give preferential treatment to an ISPs preferred content providers, content providers who are preferred by dint of either common ownership or the willingness to write big checks to the ISP, while simultaneously giving the ISP the ability to charge customers separately for the right to access any given content provider.

Bandwidth has not a dang thing to do with it.

[Hard Driver]

ATT & Verizon were blocked from starting zero-rated internet services back in January. You kill the current laws and that stuff will be back with a vengeance. This is what they want to do:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/svn9iXO9bovU9VNWCu48yASkAO0=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4252153/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpg

The current laws are the only thing that is stopping them.

The problem is not only what you are saying, which may happen, but is very visible. The problem is they sell access to you.

Comcast now can turn to Netflix and say, you want your streaming to be higher quality than standard def, or to work at all without jitters and
buffeting, to get higher bandwidth you have to pay us $$$$$ to access to our customers.

So Comcast sells you Internet access, then turns around and sells service providers access to you. You aren't getting what you paid for, which is access to all the Internet. You are getting what Comcast has decided you should get, and that will be based upon what service providers are willing to pay them to give you that access. And if they want to push their pay per view service, they can sabotage other streaming video services and you can't do anything about it. Most people only have one high speed provider. That monopoly power is the problem and why net neutrality regulation is needed, there is no other viable option.

It would be like if there was only one car company in your state and they also sold gasoline. When you bought a car, the put a code on the fuel door that you needed to enter. And then forced gas stations to put the code on their pumps. Then they charged the gas stations they didn't own more money to generate codes for them. And if they didn't like a brand of gas station, they would just not give them codes..

Why are you letting the ISP control what Internet you can get, based upon if they are paid by the service providers, rather than what you buy.

[Hard Driver]

Okay, here's a stupid question. What's to stop the creation of Co-op internet service providers? Aside from the staggering initial investment?

There is a reason you usually have only one cable provider. Sure, a few places you can get fios or Comcast, but most places just give you one choice of high speed Internet. That is why it needs to be regulated like a utility.

[SteveH]

There are also municipally owned utilities in the US. They own the infrastructure and either provide the services themselves or lease out the usage. They can keep costs down by having providers compete to offer exclusive service or allow multiple providers to lease and compete.

City-owned Internet services offer cheaper and more transparent pricing (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/city-owned-internet-services-offer-cheaper-and-more-transparent-pricing/)


Municipal broadband networks generally offer cheaper entry-level prices than private Internet providers, and the city-run networks also make it easier for customers to find out the real price of service, a new study from Harvard University researchers found.


In a related note, the town I live in has a project underway to install a dark fiber network for commercial use. Had the community relied upon a commercial entity to do so, it would have never got off the ground. It is only an infrastructure project, users will need to contract for bandwidth from a third party.