The good news for you is that Comcast is still operating under the repealed open internet laws and will be for many years under the terms of their NBC acquisition.

Im all for strict anticompetitive scrutiny and public investment in broadband given the near monopolies some of these players have, but Im not convinced that we need something as strict as net neutrality.

Don't consumers need some amount of information to make informed decisions?

The fact of having this conversation, of consumers not having any way to know which companies do what with their, the consumers', requests for data, seems to imply that maybe the market can't efficiently work this one out on its own.

The response to consumer demand for NN might result in some NN ISP's or it could, probably just as easily, result in ISP's formulating a cartel solution where they all implicitly agree to force consumers into their way or nothing. And let's be honest we all need the internet and will still pay for it if it's being throttled left and right. The response will probably depends mostly on how much rent they can soak up from their market control under non net neutrality (NNN?). We would probably be made even more unhappy if we heard their projected gains from NNN.

Even before the ruling the ISPs have been going out of their way to demand concessions from content providers to build the "last mile" network.

Then they "manage traffic" when the network gets overloaded.

This amounts to throttling, IMO.

Disagree that managing network traffic is, by definition, throttling.

So the throttling is going to be effective enough that people stop using Netflix, but subtle enough that people don't realize that they're paying for premium internet that they never use for anything but checking mail? Also, Netflix isn't going to figure this out and complain loudly about it? Also, again, why the **** would Verizon sabotage its own ISP business to support its nonexistent content businesses?

If you read the posts you were responding to you'd know that my guess is that Netflix is too big to be a huge target of tomfoolery. And creating these secret barriers to entry for the next netflix type will not sabotage it's own ISP business. You are just invisible hand waving away that they won't be doing the exact thing they just fought in court to be able to do.

I'll also clear up the ISP content owner thing since you keep jumping back and forth on it - some big ISP are owned by media giants and content owners, while some are not, and most of them are in the content selling business through TV packages. Is your stance really that the company that brings you FiOS TV has no business interest in content?

I don't recall them arguing that they needed the flexibility to smother the next Netflix. Nor is it clear why you would expect the next Netflix to be something that competes, at all, with ISPs rather than being purely complimentary to their ISP product.

Obviously Verizon has a business interest in content, in that their entire business is built on selling access to content. What's completely illogical is the idea that they have some underpants gnome plot to stop selling reliable access to content that's going to make them a lot of money. Like, do you think Comcast extorts money from ESPN for the privilege of transporting their content? That's not how it works.

You conveniently ignore that FiOS is also a TV service. Maybe that's a key component in you seeing the logic of Verizon fighting for the right to selectively block/throttle competing internet content?

What were they arguing then iyo? I haven't read the briefs but Barca makes a good point. Why fight so-called "net neutrality" if you're not interested at all in throttling? To enrich lawyers needlessly?

Politics of it aside - would you rather use a network where packets flow from A to B unmanaged or a network where someone in the middle of A and B intercepts each packet, analyzes it, and makes decisions on how quickly that data should be allowed to travel?

There are perfectly valid reasons to prioritize some traffic over others. For example, streaming video should get priority over email and webpages if toucan improve video quality that way.

It does not make sense for Verizon to cripple their marquee fiber internet product they spent zillions of dollars building to serve the interests of fios tv, which is basically indistinguishable from cable.

The much more reliable method of profiting from fios internet is to charge people money to use it.

If only cable services had a way to show movies on demand. If only.

The problem is content and access are linked, and monopolies, natural or not, on infrastructure causes issues as well.

Go back to your grocery store analogy and they are carrying their in house brand of ready made sandwich, right next to another company's ready made sandwich. I know this store will make more money getting me to buy their sandwich, but I'm also pretty sure that alone doesn't mean they are opening up that competitor's sandwich to secretly rub their d*** in it. Now that grocery store goes to court to fight hard for their right to open up that competitor's sandwich to secretly rub their d*** in it. At what point during your sandwich shopping do you start to get worried that they may be opening up that competitor's sandwich to secretly rub their d*** in it?

The threats are more than just jacking netflix et al. Any website that the ISP's don't like for any reason would be at risk. So political speech would be at risk. Political candidates for net neutrality (or for anything the ISP's didn't like) could have their websites throttled- there is nothing to guard against this.

This might have sounded tin hat a few months ago but it's not unreasonable to think government agencies could conspire with ISP's to throttle dissident websites.

Maybe someone could elaborate on ease of reporting of throttling. Would anyone halfway adept be able to see this and attribute the cause or would we be totally in the dark as to when it was going on?

They will likely wait for an economic, AT&T-breakup SCOTUS scenario.
[that we now know AT&T begged for, because of the epic windfall]

You're now dealing with a small enough # of super-giant "ISP's"
[that also have hooks into local landline, wireless, and TV cable]
that Sherman Anti-Trust act power levels can be rained down on them.
Throw in Freedom of Speech, you've got these guys in a sleeper hold.
Outside of either DoJ waiting for proper timing, or [more likely] levels of corrupt lobbying that boggle the mind.

The silence of the FCC, the EFF, even Obama[at least he has reasons tho], is deafening.

Global trend? great firewall of china and now:

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan declared about two weeks ago that
“Turkey is now in a war of liberation,” I knew bad things would follow.
This was not a violent war, for sure, but only a political one. Yet it was
still a mood that would expand the “discretionary power of the Executive.”
It was still a mood that would further curb liberty in a country, which is,
according to Freedom House, only “half-free.”

The Internet law that the government has just passed on Wednesday from Parliament
is a good example of the trouble at hand. The law allows the president of the
Telecommunications Directorate (TİB), a government agency, to make decisions
to block websites for a “privacy violation” without seeking permission from a court.
(Up to now, court decisions were necessary to block websites, and thousands
were blocked for “immoral” or other “harmful” content.)

Moreover, the law also has a second novelty, which is simply indefensible:
It forces Internet service providers to keep records on web users’ activities
for two years and make them available to authorities on request.
The Big Government will be always watching you, in other words, and even
without a court order.

In the US about 80% of the info NSA gets comes from privately owned companys.

good news

Subway to remove 'yoga mat' chemical from bread

Every time someone says Erdogan, in my head a little ali-g voice says "ear-me-now ear-me-now ear-me-now..."

Wont we develop out of that problem before throttling lines for efficiency is ever really necessary? I mean, isn't throttling lines in the face of new and developing technology just a way to preserve content control now?

Aren't Utah and Kansas considering legislation to stop those evil giant brand new fiber companies from competing with the tiny, mom and pop nation-wide cable and DSL providers?

New York City Activists Project Giant, Roving Eyeball Onto The Verizon Building
U.S. telecommunications companies are in for some Big Brother branding, whether they like it or not.

https://thedaywefightback.org/

source

So how are those tools going to win the war? It is now legal to throttle Netflix if you prefer your customers to download from a competitor. And if enough ISP's make deals with preferred content providers then your only choice will be a package deal where you get your access and content from a single source.

pretty unfortunate result in court