[sachinprism]

https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/ - I think this article is a good overview of why the above individuals may be against "net-neutrality". This was an eye-opening read in a filter bubble of "pro-net-neutrality" which as it turns out used fear mongering and unverified news, as the article shows.

[Spooky23]

This was a very disappointing article for me, as Ben didn’t really do the type of forward looking analysis that he did in the past for other topics. He didn’t do the depth of analysis that he spent a year on with respect to Uber, for example.

Declaring concern about the loss of ISP neutrality is choosing to pretend that the people who control ISPs won’t make rational decisions.

If you ran Comcast, why wouldn’t you make it easier for NBC properties? Why would Comcast behave differently than MSN or AOL did in the dialup days?

The pro-net neutrality folks are motivated by self interest. But keep in mind that there are many of them. Think about why that is — you have a competitive marketplace.

The anti-net neutrality folks are all in positions to extract tolls and “sell shovels” to ISPs.

In my opinion, ISPs have consolidated and enjoy the ability to work in a low/no competition market. They should not be given the privilege of rent-seeking and inflating the cost of services that deliver value to the consumer. They are a utility. If they don’t want to be treated that way, they need to be compelled to allow competitors access to local loops.

[jstewartmobile]

...or compelled to stop blocking municipalities from building their own loops:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-cable-...

[mrpopo]

The article seems to say both these things:

- net neutrality is a regulation on ISPs that is bad for business

- ISPs will not take advantage of repealing net neutrality

How exactly is repealing it going to help them if they won't change anything?

[sachinprism]

The ISPs won't do anything that would hurt their business. For example throttling, Netflix and not HBO would mean that the users who use both would prefer another service that does not throttle both.

Too much regulation means lesser competition and eventually in the long run things would deteriorate because it would be really hard to innovate.

Regulation seems like the equivalent of deciding to maintain the status quo, while if Title 2 is not imposed, there is the future possibility to make changes based on what the ISPs end up doing. The examples mentioned in the article illustrate this. I don't know why there is this idea floating around that this is the end of the internet and nothing can be reversed or changed from here-on (In fact I think that would be the case if Title 2 and associated regulations remain )

[jsgo]

while that first part is most likely true where competition is concerned, once you get outside of the bigger cities, you run into cases where you have one, maybe two, competitors in the space that will service your area.

I'm not saying pro/anti-Net Neutrality is right here, but it seems anti-Net Neutrality works best when actual competition is involved and there is a lot of area in the US where that competition doesn't exist.