Net Neutrality Dealt Death Blow in Appeals Court; ISPs Attempt to Reassure Consumers

[eagle1967]

Content costs what content is going to cost.

This is an argument about distribution costs/profit. If you have less customers, then your per subscriber distribution costs are going to increase. Unless competition or technology reduces those distribution costs, one way or another they are going to have to get their money. It's neither evil nor greedy to raise the distribution costs for companies that piggy-back off your distribution to siphon away your profits.

A far simper solution is simply to raise the prices of home broadband services. Or more likely we'll see data tiers in addition to the already prevalent speed tiers. So long as they control the pipes, they're going to get an return on their investment. One could argue charging Netflix more or throttling/capping that stream actually benefits more consumers than it harms - if you want to cut the cord and use Netflix or Hulu instead, then your costs should go up, not mine.

agree that those that use something should pay not others. But you and i both know that is not how it will work we will all pay more.

 

[kodiak799]

...you and i both know that is not how it will work we will all pay more.

I don't know about that....Granted I've moved a few times and competition matters, but my bundle (cable/internet) rates have been mostly flat for like 10 years...and my service has improved (faster internet, more OnDemand options).

That's because the big cities have some degree of competition. If you really open things up, then it will get interesting. That's the only thing that will deliver value to consumers - otherwise most of the "solutions" being floated always have winners and losers. And the winners love it, but usually the losers (who far outnumber the winners) get very upset once they realize they got the shaft.

I just SMH because a good number of people are always upset if it isn't basically free. There's no winning with those types.

 

[dgstorm]

I'm not sure I buy your argument kodiak799, although I appreciate your point of view and ability to show "the other side." I think that your analogy of ISPs as a distribution system falls flat. Ultimately, the internet is simply an access point. If I want a faster pipeline to get my data, then the ISPs can charge me more for a faster internet connection than the next guy (and they already do that). They shouldn't have the power to selectively choose what "type" of data I consume across that pipeline, which is what this new ruling would allow.

Furthermore, the other problem with killing Net Neutrality is that it will severely stifle innovation and technological evolution. Yes, it sucks that a new idea has come along (like Netflix) that consumes a great deal of bandwidth across a data pipe at the expense of the Cable TV. However, the cable companies can provide internet access so they are already in that market too. Really, cable TV and internet are two different markets with a little bit of overlap.

There are other industries in which new advancements and new ideas are hurting the ability of companies to make profit. A good current example is Amazon. They have practically killed Best Buy and Barnes & Noble. Does that mean we should penalize Amazon to make it more fair for the other guys?

By killing Net Neutrality (unless it is revived by further appeals), our courts have effectively given the ISPs the ability to penalize Neftlix and Hulu for coming up with a better business model. Yes, Netflix is using your ISP to provide that service, but you still pay the ISP for that service. The cable companies don't have an inherent "right" to keep you as a cable TV customer, and they can still make money off of you buy providing the pipe.

Finally, killing Net Neutrality will ultimately stifle innovation and slow down the evolution of technology related to the internet. In the long run, it's smaller startups that will have a harder time with this new ruling than companies like Netflix. Here's another decent example to illustrate: Net neutrality ruling analysis: Tech startups have most to lose | BGR

Ultimately, this ruling gives too much power to the ISPs. The whole point of an "internet connection" is to connect people to information and each other. Allowing corporations, whose soul motivation is profit, to control what, how, when, where, and why you get access to that data (or other person), is a very bad idea no matter how you slice it. It won't create competition, it will neuter it.

 

[Narsil]

 

[kodiak799]

However, the cable companies can provide internet access so they are already in that market too. Really, cable TV and internet are two different markets with a little bit of overlap.

There's a ton of overlap - even DISH offers broadband service. I don't know a major cable company that doesn't offer broadband internet - Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, RCN, TimeWarner. And if I'm paying $80 for a bundled cable/internet package, but then me and everyone else drops cable....guess how much internet my internet price is going up to.

Now I agree that they shouldn't really be able to block sites you visit, but I do think they have a right to block sites that deal in pirated content - which is probably the main intent behind this. Otherwise they don't have to block or throttle Netflix - plenty of ways for them to recover that lost revenue through various pricing models (a.k.a. profit maximization).

 

[dgstorm]

There's a ton of overlap - even DISH offers broadband service. I don't know a major cable company that doesn't offer broadband internet - Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, RCN, TimeWarner. And if I'm paying $80 for a bundled cable/internet package, but then me and everyone else drops cable....guess how much internet my internet price is going up to.

Now I agree that they shouldn't really be able to block sites you visit, but I do think they have a right to block sites that deal in pirated content - which is probably the main intent behind this. Otherwise they don't have to block or throttle Netflix - plenty of ways for them to recover that lost revenue through various pricing models (a.k.a. profit maximization).

You make some great points for sure. Being able to block criminal stuff like kiddie porn and piracy is definitely something that needs to be addressed. It's a complex issue, but ultimately those issues should be solvable in other ways. I just think the core of the internet needs to stay as open as possible, otherwise we all lose.

Luckily, this ruling against the FCC may actually spur things to change further in favor of Net Neutrality. There are rumblings on the web that this ruling could actually force the FCC to create a more cohesive policy regarding the problem which would allow them to actually increase their authority to enforce Net Neutrality. In the long run, the cable and internet companies' lawsuit could back-fire on them.

 

[blacksoxing]

It's the cable providers who were just handed a gatlin gun. As soon as they were finally challenged by the likes of Netflix with original award winning programing A la carte style, it's all been reversed. Instead here we are, screwed as customers. If I were a Netflix exec I'd double or triple the subscription price starting today in order to incite the kind of outrage that SHOULD be happening right now. They're heading there anyway, if not more than triple. May as well be up front about it and show customers WHY this is happening, not 3 years from now when they'll not understand why they're getting ripped.

The only bright side to any of this is that Google Fiber finally has it's calling. And we need it NOW, ubiquitously. Screw self driving cars, you want my money, give me a reason to destroy Comcast and the like, and I'd gladly pay a premium to destroy their greedy ways.

So you'd triple the price of Netflix...because of this????

You are aware that this will just drive people to Netflix's competition...or even worse....back to primarily using cable TV!

I don't want to call you idiotic, but this would be one of the dumbest options Netflix and the like could do. Best option...wait until the dust settles. The American consumer ultimately can dictate the fate of a corporation. Many have risen/many have fallen.

As well, your local city government dictates the fate of your ISP. When I was in school, I had Comcast. The local city government basically forced Comcast to improve its infrastructure and rates, or they wouldn't renew the contract. It might blow your mind that your city council might have an ounce of power.

Finally, Netflix's best strategy may be waiting until they're forced to raise rates (because of this actual ruling, and not some nonsense) and THEN explaining to its customers whats happening. You're making it as if we're losing our rights to bear arms on the net - instead, we're just not demanding enough. From what I read, the court believes we have a choice in providers. It's probably about that time we tell these corporations we're not satisfied enough with our choices

 

[mountainbikermark]

This isn't about Netflix or any other streaming media. This is about defining what you are allowed to have come to you. This is about what is deemed legal speech and information.
The DC court of appeals has a super majority leaning to one side of the aisle favoring the government as THE source of right and wrong, ever decision you are allowed to make, the definition of freedom, the true nanny state. They are the ones that decide the constitutionality of executive orders, the legal status of everything coming out of the capital that the supreme court doesn't take up or even does eventually take up.
This is much bigger than Hulu, Comcast, Verizon, etc. It's about the government redefining freedom and they just did. If they deem religion as illegal to broadcast, it can now be blocked. If they define green energy sources as being wrong they can now block access to information about green energy. I could go on with more examples that are bad for every American, depending on who's in charge at the moment. It could manipulate congressional and presidential elections by blocking the truth in favor of one side or the other. It could destroy a presidential administration or block a presidential conspiracy from ever coming to light.
In essence, it gives control of "truth" to 1 side of the political aisle. The current administration isn't the one to fear the unintended consequences of this decision effect. It's the next one that could manipulate the decision, or the one after that.
This decision takes a step closer to the reality of the internet in China.


Support Our Troops!!!
<><
s pen aholic in Beast Mode (Notetoo)

 

[kodiak799]

I understand all the concern and it isn't misguided...however, I maintain the primary, likely sole motivation from the broadband providers is driven by wanting to be able to block sites that distribute their content illegally (because the govt can be so slow and ineffective at shutting these sites down). Such sites are hurting all the players involved - content owners, cable, Netflix, Hulu, etc...

As for doing something sinister to Netflix, I think you guys are pretty off-target. Besides likely being illegal/anti-competion (remember when VZW tried to remove tether apps from the Playstore?), there are many more "secretive" ways to go about this. They can charge Netflix - easily the number one bandwidth hog on the net - more to offset losses. Or they can strong-arm content providers into either charging Netflix more, or paying them more to carry their content on cable. Or, as mentioned, they can just offset losses by charging subscribers more.

 

[Hugh Jass]

So you'd triple the price of Netflix...because of this????

You are aware that this will just drive people to Netflix's competition...or even worse....back to primarily using cable TV!

I don't want to call you idiotic, but this would be one of the dumbest options Netflix and the like could do. Best option...wait until the dust settles. The American consumer ultimately can dictate the fate of a corporation. Many have risen/many have fallen.

As well, your local city government dictates the fate of your ISP. When I was in school, I had Comcast. The local city government basically forced Comcast to improve its infrastructure and rates, or they wouldn't renew the contract. It might blow your mind that your city council might have an ounce of power.

Finally, Netflix's best strategy may be waiting until they're forced to raise rates (because of this actual ruling, and not some nonsense) and THEN explaining to its customers whats happening. You're making it as if we're losing our rights to bear arms on the net - instead, we're just not demanding enough. From what I read, the court believes we have a choice in providers. It's probably about that time we tell these corporations we're not satisfied enough with our choices

I'm not argueing logical buisness structure, I'm argueing that due to the lack of imediate effect of this ruleing the general public won't give not one damn about it. If as soon as the ruleing happened there was an imediate effect and multiple content providers raised their rates to offset inevitable blackballing, THAT would get the publics interest. This isn't about Netflix vs competition, they're all going to be impacted...but the cost goes to us in the end. And I'm supposed to feel bad for the likes of Comcast which has a market cap of nearly 150 BILLION dollars and has risen ~30% in the last month alone? That's T-Rex level crap right there.