[rayiner]

What exactly is "disgusting" about the idea that the FCC is hesitating to implement something that was struck down by a federal court, and is inconsistent with Congress's regulatory agenda for telecom, and amounts to telling companies what they can['t] do with their private property?

I can understand believing that net neutrality is, on the balance, the most beneficial regulatory solution. But dismissing the opposition as "disgusting" shows nothing more than small-mindedness.

[clintonb11]

Because these private companies have monopolies on their infrastructures and use protectionist measures to keep it that way. And on top of that, companies like Comcast have created a huge conflict of interest by owning content providers like NBC. Is it fair if the only high speed internet in an area is Comcast, and they make CBS video load slow because it is a competitor? I run a VoIP company. Should comcast be allowed to charge me so my clients get quality phone service since Comcast offers its own VoIP service? The Internet should be treated as a utility. If you want to be an ISP, you have to treat all sites equally.

[rayiner]

> Because these private companies have monopolies on their infrastructures and use protectionist measures to keep it that way.

Cable companies are not legally monopolies almost anywhere. Any franchise renegotiated since 1992 must be non-exclusive under federal law. And if you dig into it, it's cities that kill competition deals, not cable companies. Houses have FIOS in the shadow of Comcast Center in Philadelphia. Meanwhile, San Francisco blocked U-Verse expansion because AT&T's cabinets were ugly. Who exactly is at fault of perpetuating the lack of competition?

> The Internet should be treated as a utility.

That's how we got in this mess in the first place, monopolies and all. Cable companies were treated as public utility monopolies. Capital investment stagnated, because public utilities have little financial incentive to do anything other than simply keep infrastructure (barely) functional. The 1992 reform to deregulate cable and make exclusive franchises illegal wasn't a total success, but look at what happened to cable technology and investment since then relative to DSL (which remained relatively more regulated).

[ArtDev]

Is the internet you want? http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png

[rayiner]

I think that's FUD, first of all, and unlikely to come about. Also, if there was QoS, etc, I wouldn't mind having a dedicated "Netflix ISP." The streaming experience still sucks compared to flipping a cable channel, and co-location and integration of the software stack could make such a service better. Heck, I'd love it if this was Apple's play after an iTV. Vertical integration can lead to a marvelous user experience, as Apple has shown.

[selmnoo]

What irks me about this is that services like edX are going to be affected. I didn't want MIT et al. being charged for the free video lectures they provide. Now people who used to provide high quality material for free are disincentived doing such things.

I don't love the internet because of Hulu or Netflix or iTunes or whatever else, I love it because of Wikipedia and edX, and countless other stuff that's put there by everyday people. That's what's in danger.

[rayiner]

I honestly don't think it would happen. The cable companies have no incentive to go after sites like that. They don't use much bandwidth, wouldn't pay much before just shutting down, and are very sympathetic. There's nothing but downside for a cable company to go after such a site. It'd be irrational. They're going after Netflix because their site is responsible for a ton of bandwidth on their network and Netflix makes a lot of money leveraging their network.

[dragonwriter]

No, they are going after Netflix because Netflix streaming video service competes directly with the cable companies own TV and streaming video services. It's a straight up toll to compete.

[selmnoo]

All I can think of at your response is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_. A few years ago I would have thought it to be be simply unthinkable that FCC would be considering such a proposition. Now, I'm all but certain that this would be the natural next step.

> They don't use much bandwidth, wouldn't pay much before just shutting down, and are very sympathetic.

Wikipedia consumes a lot of bandwidth. Okay, not as much as Netflix, but what about the Wikipedia of tomorrow - which houses lots of high-quality media? It feels like there might not be one if net neutrality is beaten. Or the future of education that's video lectures for the masses. Etc.