If net neutrality was ended, would ISPs actually charge incrementally for website access?
Websites like savetheinternet.com seem to argue that if net neutrality is ended, only major websites will be offered. They say "And without Net Neutrality, millions of small businesses owned by people of color wouldn’t be able to compete against larger corporations online, which would deepen economic disparities."
Why are ISPs going to targets people of color? I don't understand..
How will ISPs decide what websites I can not visit? Will they have a whitelist/blacklist?
Will there be ISPs that offer packages that we have now? (I.E bandwidth only restriction)
I've seen good arguments both for and against net neutrality and I really don't know which would be better.
Also worth pointing out that those are for mobile data, not home internet. I don't believe Portuguese ISPs have the same kind of clustering into packages for home internet, even without net neutrality.
In reality, we aren't going to see a dramatic and immediate cable-ization of internet post-Title II. The more insidious threat is the slow war of attrition against non-cable-owned streaming and other services that tilts the playing field against certain kinds of startups.
They won't, because they've seen what happens when they do that. People are leaving cable TV because it is a selected menu of channels. No choice. ISPs who attempt to limit choice will find themselves without subscribers. If Comcast decided I can't access Netflix on my internet plan, I'm gone.
Many people have no choice in their broadband provider[1]--of those that do, their choices are often between corporations that also have significant interest in TV and cable TV (even moreso if the AT&T/Time Warner deal goes through).
Without net neutrality and with effective monopolies or duopolies in many high speed markets, these companies would have both the ability and the direct incentive to limit or restrict access to any form of competition--it would be bad business for them NOT to do everything they can to shut down Netflix, Hulu, et al and redirect people to their own distribution platforms.
FCC is complicit here as well. They measure "competition" by checking to see if one or more broadband provider exists in the same census tract. So basically there is "competition" in so much that you can move to a new residence if you want different service.
This is the crux of the issue. Without consumer choice, an ISP can target whatever local regions it wants with specific, anti-consumer plans. Unless there is an regulation to keep them in check..
Me? No where. I'd probably figure out how to live life without the internet, by and large. I know for many people that isn't an option, but personally I've lived without the internet for a good chunk of my life, and I can do it again. I'd probably be happier anyway. I'd probably read more books, get out into the community more, maybe learn a new instrument. My parents live without the internet and they're getting through life fine in 2017.
My banks are virtual (one, literally, and the other has 2 branches around me, each only an hour away). My bills are virtual. I like to remote into work instead of driving there to fix random build failures. Video games are almost unworkable without an internet connection. The internet is the only source for new software that I've used in at least 5 years (and the only source for Linux software I've ever had).
A little over half my life, I didn't have internet access, but that doesn't describe my situation now. It's like imagining life without a car. I'd survive, but life wouldn't be the same, and I'm not convinced it would be better.
You and I are in the same boat, virtual bank and all. I'm actually a little more tethered to the Internet, because I work remotely. But I feel like my vote is meaningless these days. I feel powerless. The only real vote that anyone listens to anymore is a vote with your wallet, and if it comes to that, I'm damn well ready to make that vote. Drastic times call for drastic measures and all that. I know not everyone can do that, but I can and I will. It won't be just Comcast losing my money, but my bank, Netflix, Hulu Amazon, eBay, Newegg... All of it.
I'll tell you one thing, if corporations thought the response to ending net neutrality would be along the lines I propose en masse, they wouldn't even be thinking about it. Problem is, they're 100% right people will just suck it up and go along with it.
Honestly, as more time passes I'm becoming more convinced this whole Internet thing is going a bit too far. When it was new, I saw a bright future for it but this? This is on track to becoming very dystopian in the near future. Actually there's a pretty good argument that we're already in a nightmare scenario.
Even if the ISPs did that, I'm sure at least one would advertise "We offer all websites unrestricted, no limits!!" and everyone would subscribe to them.
Getting a new ISP started is a pain. Witness the legal troubles Google and their partner cities went through when the cities passed "one touch make ready" laws to simplify the process of Google and other new ISPs stringing new lines. [1]
ISPs are going through a consolidation process in the USA, so we're all ending up with less choice, not more.
They will probably start by favouring some services over others. For example, they might ban VOIP and allow you to video call only through their proprietary service.
> Will there be ISPs that offer packages that we have now? (I.E bandwidth only restriction)
Cynically? Market segmentation. Segment the market into sub-communities along demographic lines as well as producers and consumers. Figure out how to charge both small businesses trying to start a shopify store and the consumers who're likely to visit them.
> How will ISPs decide what websites I can not visit? Will they have a whitelist/blacklist?
If they don't have to treat all traffic passing through their lines equally, then they can choose to downgrade traffic from say Google unless El Goog pays up the fee. And, probably, ask you to pay up too.
> Will there be ISPs that offer packages that we have now? (I.E bandwidth only restriction)
To quote myself;
What makes you think they won't take full advantage of the power that you've given them? Once you give them that power, do you think they won't use it to make more and more? To squeeze every last dime from your pockets?
What makes you think that these rent seekers won't extract their pound of flesh and then some from you and your customers?
After all, past behavior is indeed predictive of future results.
> I've seen good arguments both for and against net neutrality and I really don't know which would be better.
When all else fails, go with enlightened self interest. Do you really want to pay some "ISP-fee" in the future to start your startup? Do you think consumers will be able to find your company or bother to do so if they have to pay $5 extra for the privilege of seeing your website?
It's in everyone's enlightened self interest over here to oppose this, because in the long run it will kill the consumer internet as we know it.
Net Neutrality proponents have really gone off the deep end. I'd love to see how they react if the only user-visible changes end up being lower monthly bills.
1. Net neutrality places severe binding restrictions on how internet service is provided, and by extension who can provide it. (It's expensive to serve up Netflix if you're banned from offering Netflix privileged pipeline status. It's harder to start a new ISP when any internet service has to follow strict neutrality regulation.)
2. Once it is cheaper and easier to provide internet service, you can expect to see costs fall as the market becomes more competitive as new players enter the market and established players invest in optimizing their infrastructure.
This is the basic argument offered by Pai and other deregulation proponents. And the market doesn't have to be perfectly competitive for this to work out. I have three cable ISP options where I live so I'm not worried.
I love the bandwagon hatred of anyone who suggests ending net neutrality isn't the end of the world! Check out my comment to Jankiel and respond to that instead of screaming that I'm stupid.
Websites like savetheinternet.com seem to argue that if net neutrality is ended, only major websites will be offered. They say "And without Net Neutrality, millions of small businesses owned by people of color wouldn’t be able to compete against larger corporations online, which would deepen economic disparities."
Why are ISPs going to targets people of color? I don't understand..
How will ISPs decide what websites I can not visit? Will they have a whitelist/blacklist?
Will there be ISPs that offer packages that we have now? (I.E bandwidth only restriction)
I've seen good arguments both for and against net neutrality and I really don't know which would be better.