| Net Neutrality has a specific meaning, and is supposed to protect against one specific mechanism that would undercut the internet's openness. The fear of Non-Net-Neutrality goes far beyond the usual "there's only two ISPs where I life and they both offer the same deals". It's something in completely its own category of nefariousness because they could be as anticompetitive as they want, and the market could not solve it. That's because the injured party isn't their customers, who could take their business elsewhere, or at least loudly complain on the internet (if they have any). It's someone not part to the ISP<->customer contract, namely that unknown video startup in Nantucket, or the e2e-encrpyted messenger app your friend Lauren is working on. They're going to be forced into paying ISPs if they ever want to reach the ISPs' customers. And there's no risk to the ISP, because nobody is going to change ISPs for some startup they've never heard about. The result could be ISPs capturing almost every cent of value created by new startups. We will also have a fractured internet, because small companies will have to negotiate contracts with every single ISP. Also want to reach those 500,000 people in eastern Montana? That'll cost you $2,000 per week. Anyone not living on the US coasts, and people in other countries, will constantly run into "HTTP Error 469: go suck a bag of.." |