[rayiner]

Why would cable companies have any incentive to demand payment from small entities like that? There is no profit motive in that, just bad publicity. I think its a really contrived argument, and shows exactly what I'm talking about: big money companies are trying to justify laws that favor them by raising totally hypothetical concerns about what companies may do to small entities that have some public interest benefit.

If Comcast et al really try to keep sex workers from getting needed information about health risks, let's address it when it happens with a targeted law. I'm sure it'll be much easier to get public support for such a policy then.

[bandushrew]

The health risks for sex workers was purely a hypothetical situation that showed the general class of the problem.

The point of it being a communications platform is that there is an infinite variety of cases of exactly that kind of problem, potentially leading to an infinite variety of 'targeted' laws. Aside from the incredible inefficiency of attempting to deal with them one at a time, practically speaking it is just not going to happen.

Cable companies will not have any incentive to specifically demand payment from small entities like that. They will just degrade the service they provide for everyone, and make special cases for those who pay the appropriate amount of money.

This will massively damage the internet as a communications platform, it will cause huge problems for small content creators who are trying to get a start, and the need to make deals with a wide range of ISPs will crush small businesses, and startup entrepreneurs.

Netflix is a fantastic example of this.

It is, right now, big enough to be able to move largish amounts of money around to solve its delivery problem. A few years ago, it was not, and - this is important - it would never have gotten to the size it is if the anti-NN measures that are being proposed now were taken back then.

Snapchat, WhatsApp, the list goes on for companies that started small, and were able to grow because they did not need to pay ISPs individually to have their content delivered to the ISPs customers.

MineCraft has been responsible for millions of downloads of its product, probably causing Comcast customers to consume thousands of GB of bandwidth from Comcast. At what point would the distributors of MineCraft have needed to pay Comcast a bribe to ensure its bits were delivered without interruption?

You are either being very disingenuous regarding the effect of these measures, or you genuinely do not understand them.

Assuming it is the latter, i suggest you do a little more reading.

[rayiner]

You're using very biased language ("bribe"). Its not bribery for a for-profit company to demand payment for other company's who want to reach its users. That the basic premise of Facebook's or LinkedIn's business model after all.

You've clearly picked a side, but why should we? I understand that people on here have an interest in startups succeeding against big companies, but why does that rise to the level of public interest? These are just all for-profit companies hoping to make a bunch of money off consumers.

It should also be noted that content creators naturally have a lot of leverage, because their products are non-fungible. Its content aggregators and distributors that would see the biggest hits to their profit margins.

[bandushrew]

It is successful content creators who have a lot of leverage. Aspiring content creators (and distributors) have none.

"These are just all for-profit companies hoping to make a bunch of money off consumers."

Unfortunately you have completely ignored all discussion of The Internet being a communications platform, and not merely a commercial platform.

Ignoring that point entirely has allowed you to continue making your own point, which is to refute the idea that we should care what happens to a bunch of for profit internet companies.

I agree with your point, FWIW, once once a company reaches the size of a Facebook, or Netflix I don't care what happens to it.

I do care desperately that individuals are able to easily create and distribute content to each other, of any kind.

The Internet as a communications platform that is available to everyone, for everyone, is what is endangered by the proposed anti-NN measures.

[rayiner]

> Unfortunately you have completely ignored all discussion of The Internet being a communications platform, and not merely a commercial platform.

I'm not ignoring this point, I just don't buy it. The internet is mostly just a bunch of privately owned networks, operated for profit. I think it has public-interest value as a communications platform for certain non-profit enterprises like Wikipedia, etc, and maybe we need legislative protection of those functions. But I don't think ensuring that some new for-profit startup can function without paying the people that own the wires rises to the level of "public interest" even if they aren't the size of a Netflix or Facebook. I think this is primarily where we disagree: once you're for-profit, you're on your own.

[selmnoo]

> I think it has public-interest value as a communications platform for certain non-profit enterprises like Wikipedia, etc, and maybe we need legislative protection of those functions.

I think at some point the line between non-profit and for-profit gets very hard to draw. E.g., NFL is a non-profit organization, yet intuitively you would think that they should pay for their streaming services that are very much like Netflix. There are also a lot for-profits which are less entertainment oriented and more education oriented, and vice versa. Heck, I actually use Netflix almost exclusively for watching 'How it's made' and the documentaries it has. If everyone used Netflix like me, would it fall it fall under the provision of being protected againt anti-NN? What about loads of other services which really are like this, but are for-profit?

So, it seems to be a compromise either way, if you view it as a commercial platform or a communications platform. Personally, I'd rather err on it being the latter.

[bandushrew]

This is the first time you have responded to it. You were ignoring it.

honestly, that is not where we disagree. We disagree entirely on the primary function of the internet.

You apparently see it, already, as just a series of walled gardens.

Unfortunately your lack of awareness around what it does, is driving your uninformed opinions around what kinds of protection it needs.

For the sake of my own sanity, I am gonna assume that you are simply playing devils advocate.