[matz1]

The way I see it is net neutrality is very unfair to the isp. It creates unnecessary burden to the isp. Of course Isp will hate it and will fight for it as much as their can.

[deno]

Those ISPs can only fight this “burden” by taking advantage of their unfair monopoly. If there was an actual free market competition there would be no need for net neutrality in the first place.

BOB could just switch to using DAVE’s ISP service, who would be happy to connect him with CAROL’s AN without any throttling.

[matz1]

Its not the ISP fault if they are the monopoly.

[deno]

Wouldn’t you agree those ISPs are very well compensated for this “burden” by not having to compete?

[IOT_Apprentice]

IT is their fault when they block competition in the marketplace and try anything they can to prevent cities to open up the market to competition.

[matz1]

Its in their best interest to block/prevent competition.

[mmt]

Just because an action is in their best interest does not absolve them from the fault of that action. Arguably, one can usually safely assume the opposite.

[reitanqild]

What extra burden?

They get paid by customer to deliver bits.

The only extra burdens I see is the "burden" of 1) not double dipping and 2) not overselling their offerings.

[matz1]

> What extra burden?

All the work to make sure it comply with net neutrality.

[reitanqild]

AFAIK in more than one case that has been the burden of:

not taking extra steps to throttle Netflix,

i.e.

the burden of not double dipping.

I think few people are arguing that Netflix should get special treatment, only that:

* ISPs should treat all bits the same (unless I as the receiver has asked for something else).

* ISPs should have enough capacity to serve their customers.

[matz1]

It maybe that case but regardless, net neutrality disadvantage to the isp. Of course they are not happy with it.

[notheguyouthink]

While your statement of "of course they are not happy with it" is true, it's not a defense in my mind. The same could be said about any regulation that controls indefensible practices of companies.

From oil companies, to fishing companies, to waste disposal to whatever, most companies from a purely technical viewpoint would be more than happy to get rid of regulations that control what and how they can do business. Yet, we have those regulations in place for a reason.

In this case we simply ask that ISPs deliver the bits we paid for. I don't want Comcast treating my bits differently anymore than I want my mail carrier to hold my packages ransom because they seem important and I'd probably pay more for them.

My mail carrier doesn't read my mail. Comcast shouldn't either.

[matz1]

Yes of course it always depends on which side are one on. If I'm the customer sure I don't want isp throttle my bits but If I'm the isp, I want the freedom to throttle.

[reitanqild]

I'd argue that

- basic honesty (not pretending they don't get paid)

- and not extorting money from other companies by keeping said customers hostage

shouldn't be considered a disadvantage?

[pwinnski]

Net neutrality requires that ISPs actually deliver what they've advertised and collected payment for and claimed to deliver. Of course they're not happy with that. It's much easier to deliver less than promised but still pocket the full payment.

[Karunamon]

Correction - make it comply with Title 2. Net neutrality isn't what the FCC killed, Title 2 (which is still a massive blob of legislation, even if you discount the stuff in forbearance) is a set of laws that ensure a kind of neutrality.