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.
[0]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/12364538513/portu...
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.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...
Where are you going to go to?
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.
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.
https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://contribute.itstarts.today//2018 https://indivisible435.org/
yeah, but how?
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.
ISPs are going through a consolidation process in the USA, so we're all ending up with less choice, not more.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Touch_Make_Ready#Legal_Cha...
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?
That's what they've done in the past. They've carved up territory like drug gangs to maximise profit. (Look at the maps - notice how they don't overlap? https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16998/us-internet... ). At the same time, they've often colluded to pass legislation that locks out competitors (https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcas...). And they've gotten so good at it that even the almighty El Goog couldn't break into their territory - I mean, market.
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.
That's not what the term blacklist means.
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.
Surely there's a better solution than complete deregulation.
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.