Those deals are only lucrative because people are on the other end buying the service and visiting the websites. You can't make people want to go to sony's website. The more services get filtered, the more people will want something unfiltered. They'll get it too, either via VPN, or through switching networks. Subscribers are all that matters here. They're all that matters. You can have the most favorable backroom deals you want, but if people aren't buying, it's worthless.
They'll want to go to Sony's website if that's the only one they can get to.
I simply don't follow your logic at all. Thanks to net neutrality, we already have that wonderful unfiltered access that you acknowledge consumers crave... why are you working so hard to justify giving that up?
Your insistence that consumers should jump through expensive and complicated hoops, like switching providers or using VPNs, is absurd and naive. There will be a strong economic incentive for all ISPs to manipulate their traffic, and with such sweeping control of the Internet that you've given them, they'll legally be able to throttle your VPN traffic, too.
It's not specifically that, although that specifically has the effect of expanding the marketability of rural areas, which encourages investment in growing their networks to communities that don't currently have them. Why? Because it lowers the end-user bill, meaning more subscribers.
But there are a lot of unintended effects of treating ISPs as common carriers under the 1930s act. The particular act is apparently well known for its bloated, extensive regulations. ISPs have to make sure that they're in compliance with regulations set forth for 1930s phone companies. It discourages investment.
Investment is further discouraged when you're not sure exactly what regulations you're going to be treated under next year. If the FCC suddenly categorizes you under the 1930s act (as they did) what do you do? You put off investment until you can finish challenging it in court. And if you don't get a definitive answer, you put off investment even further until things settle out. If you're getting jerked around from one administration to the next (which they are), you look to congress (appropriate) to give an answer that you think will survive partisan politics. Until then, who is going to roll out the dough for infrastructure improvements and tech development?
You have to step back and think about this from the perspective of a company.
I thought you said consumers would be clamoring for neutral connections? Too bad for those poor/rural/underserved communities, eh? Looks like they will only get access to filtered service from ISPs who took a lot of money from content providers to subsidize the build-out.
Of course, this is all beside the fact that your claims of net neutrality harming infrastructure investment is supported by data that is
sketchy at best, generated by "think tanks" that are
funded by the telecom companies themselves.
I agree that competition and expanding broadband access is very important. Why do we have to impact the fundamental workings of the Internet to make that happen? Why can't we just keep the Internet the same and make it easier for small businesses to start new ISPs, forcing everyone in the industry to compete with lower prices and better service?
(Oh, wait — that might force the monopolistic incumbents to compete, too — better not do that.)
What about T-Mobile, Sprint, ATT, Verizon? Do they not count? Microsoft wants to get into the game too by providing wireless broadband. I think wired ISP filtering/throttling would likely spell the end of that technology.
The largest ISPs and phone companies in the country will have the leverage to negotiate the most lucrative deals of all. If you're a shareholder and the company could immediately add another $500 million (or a whole lot more) to their bottom line by extorting service providers, what would you say? "No, guys, we'll get more subscribers if we stay neutral!"
Microsoft wants to get into the game too by providing wireless broadband. I think wired ISP filtering/throttling would likely spell the end of that technology.
Microsoft wants to get into the WISP (wireless ISP) business? Why not throttle iOS and Apple software updates so it will take people longer to download software from their competitor, or slow down Google so people will spend more time on Bing. Then Google can retaliate by slowing down Windows updates on Google Fiber, so your preferred hardware will ultimately help determine who you need to buy your Internet connection from. Pretty cool, eh? It's all possible in your world without net neutrality.
Further, your suggestion that wireless service is an adequate substitute for wired service further supports my suspicions that you don't fully understand how the Internet or its physical infrastructure works.
Any "video" provider. This is still throttling (from the perspective of a data cap), websites that don't push video... like yours. Why is it ok that Netflix internet traffic can bypass T-Mobile's data cap, but yours can't? That's preference for particular data that heavily favors certain (advertised) websites.
So you are arguing in favor of net neutrality now?
They are, indeed, showing preference for a particular
type of data, but not data from any single provider. If unlimited streaming was only available from Netflix, I would have a real problem with that. Otherwise, "Binge On" is just a feature that users can turn on or off. I don't consider it a true net neutrality issue, but I do concede that it is definitely flirting with an ominous gray area that foreshadows what a prioritized Internet might look like in the future.
They want net neutrality to go away because it lets them play kingmaker and decide the winners and losers on what should be the ultimate capitalist platform: the Internet.
