It is not surprising he would just parrot the talking points of the telcos. I sometimes wonder, though, if he actually knows what complete BS he is emitting or if he actually believes that (and I am not sure which alternative I would prefer).

I'd like to pay $3/month for my Netflix traffic to not count towards any caps. Is that allowed?

Now, can I ask my ISP to just bill Netflix, who (with more customers than any US fixed-wire ISP) can negotiate something less than $3/month?

The problem with allowing special arrangements it that companies can--and do--use them in anticompetitive and manipulative ways.

Let ISPs try to abuse their momentary position. They're newish businesses in a rapidly-changing market and technological environment. Not one of them has the same "single provider at any cost" monopoly that phone companies had when the Title II telecom regulatory regime was designed.

Some of the companies they might try to shake down – Google, Apple, and others – have the capital to route around them with better services.

On the contrary, almost all of them have that monopoly, oftentimes to the point where they've negotiated with exclusivity arrangements with municipalities. This means that even if Google, Apple, Netflix, etc. are willing and able to to lay down their own infrastructure, they're prevented from doing so by the government. If that doesn't make ISPs deserving of Title II regulation, I don't know what does.

Other sets of wires into the home exist and are capable of delivering high-speed internet. (Most notably: legacy copper wires offering DSL.) More wires can be run, just like cable TV was. It'll be even easier now than the cable buildouts of the 60s-80s; the world is richer, awash in capital, with better tools.

Wireless also keeps getting better and is now competitive with wired for most daily internet needs – email, web, VOIP, audio streaming, light video, gaming – all except for bulk HD video. (Just like people have 'cord cut' their cable TV to rely on net entertainment, others are 'wire cutting' their fixed-line internet service, and relying solely on their wireless internet, from one of 3+ providers.) So speaking for the US, most people have 6+ options to get core internet service. That's no "ISP monopoly".

We agree that locally-franchised monopolies over certain wireline services are a problem, where they exist. (OTOH, some localities have enabled multiple cable companies and other competitive wireline services, like Google Fiber.) Those localities with bad policies should undo their mistakes, as they see neighbors and peer-localities having made much better choices. But those scattered problem communities are no reason to compel a specific national service formula on all ISPs everywhere, even where there is competition.

Isn't one of the major arguments for net neutrality that, at least in some parts of the world, the above situation is effectively what is happening today, and therefore the local ISP can effectively hold the entire community hostage?

But in the US, most people have 2 or more wired internet options and 3 or more wireless internet options. The feared abuses are almost entirely hypothetical-future-risks. Any attempts to "hold communities hostage" would create massive openings for both competitive marketing and technological countermeasures.

By all means, any local communities being "held hostage" by a single provider should remedy their situation. Locally.

In other words, almost all the evidence I've seen as an outsider suggests that much of the US does not, in fact, have a functioning competitive market for residential high speed wired Internet access, but rather a complete monopoly whose single provider will furthermore spend a fortune on legal manoeuvres to defend that position if necessary. The net neutrality movement and efforts to classify Internet access as an essential service subject to regulation seem to be the first serious moves at national level to counter some of the resulting problems.

No, because it's discriminating against non-Netflix traffic. But there is certainly nothing wrong with paying the market rate for all your traffic to not count towards any caps (i.e. an uncapped connection).

As far as I understand it, nothing prevents the hospital to get:

Connection 1: Availability guarantee 99.999%, bandwidth 150Gbps max with 50Gbps dedicated, RTT for last mile: <=80ms

Connection 2: Normal, small business grade connection.

Then the hospital can use connection 1 for critical medical equipment and connection 2 for everything else. But, they could do just the reverse (why would they?) and the ISP would need to abide by connection 1's guarantees regardless of content (assuming the upstream connection from the provider is also good enough).

NN regulations make such economically-sensible, mutually-beneficial business arrangements illegal. Everyone's got to buy the mandated, "neutral" service tiers – rather than other cheaper mixed-traffic-treatment formulas that could meet their needs.

If you want a high-bandwidth low-latency guaranteed-reliable fully-provisioned circuit then it's going to be expensive. Providing the same guarantees but only for a single application doesn't reduce the cost at all. If the customer is paying you to guarantee the delivery of packets, it doesn't cost you anything more if the customer then decides they're going to be YouTube packets rather than telemedicine packets. None of the things that cause that level of service to be expensive are application-specific so there is no savings to be had by treating applications differently.

Phrasing it like that is political maneuvering. There is nothing you cannot get. No application is made not possible by network neutrality. There are only some things which, if you get them, the ISP has to provide for all your data and not just data for a particular application or source.

This new federally-mandated kind of service, as it meets extra legal constraints and prevents certain kinds of side-payments from happening, is almost certainly going to be more expensive and available from a smaller set of fewer, larger providers. (Title II/common-carrier regulation does nothing to create new provider competition, but rather assumes that monopoly is the only possibility and cements it into place.)

> This new federally-mandated kind of service, as it meets extra legal constraints and prevents certain kinds of side-payments from happening, is almost certainly going to be more expensive and available from a smaller set of fewer, larger providers.

You're talking like there is some kind of vigorous competition going on at present which is going to be impeded. And the side payments you're talking about don't make things cost less, they interfere with competition in other markets that actually are competitive, which would ultimately make things cost more.

> Title II/common-carrier regulation does nothing to create new provider competition, but rather assumes that monopoly is the only possibility and cements it into place.

That's because it is. Utilities are natural monopolies. The duopoly that was created by accident when telephone and cable TV both merged into internet has been a disaster.

The bulk of a last mile ISP's costs are based on the area they offer service in rather than the number of customers they have. A strand of fiber costs the same amount to install and maintain whether it carries the traffic of 100 customers or 200. That means if you want to have two ISPs you would have to pay almost twice as much for internet service at the same level of ISP infrastructure investment and profits because each ISP would have to cover all the same costs with half as many customers. If you want to talk about what makes things cost more, it's trying to "create competition" in a natural monopoly market.

A utility isn't a natural monopoly because the government said so, it's a natural monopoly because adding competition makes prices go up.

Regulatory-NN advocates do in fact want to legally ban a class of services, with unmetered/prioritized data paths for certain applications (like perhaps "Wikipedia Zero"), that would have willing customers if available on the market.

(Additionally, if I were to start a competitive ISP somewhere, use non-neutral routing as part of my value proposition, and attract willing customers to my service, the regulators would come and fine me, and then perhaps impound my assets and imprison me, because my service doesn't match their formulas.)

Also, some ISPs have at least the option in their contracts to throttle the bandwidth after a certain amount of traffic. AFAIK, no ISP has used that option yet, so it has not been challenged in court.

People living in rural areas do have problem, indeed. I know a woman who until a year ago was stuck with freaking ISDN. There are many cases of rural communities pretty much begging the Telekom (Germany's largest ISP, I think) to hook them up with DSL, the Telekom ignoring their requests until the moment those communities start talking with some other ISP. The moment that happens, Telekom will hook them up with DSL faster than anyone can say "Internet".

This is really bad for rural communities. Not only for having not internet but alos for their Economy. I know a company who are stuck with 1mbit and after experimenting with satellite internet and mobile-internet they are pretty much on the brick to move towards the city. Is everyone left behind is suppose to grow potatos for a job?

Here in the US, I had as much neutrality as I wanted or needed before the FCC got involved, from the 3+ wireline and 5+ wireless providers in my area (San Francisco). Can I and my chosen ISP opt out of this new set of constraints from DC lawyers/lobbyists/politicians?

1) But that is the whole point: It is warranted, because it is imposed on the providers( at least until law changes). It is quite obvious that ISPs have no interest in doing so by them selves.

Netflix was slow because Verizon throttled their traffic, not because they didn't have the capacities to route it properly. They simply wanted a piece of the Netflix Pie. So net neutrality will prevent that not cause it.

2) This is not about the big content providers at all. They would simply pay the ISPs a fee and pass it on to their customers. So net neutrality actually prevents increased consumer fees.

>I had as much neutrality as I wanted or needed before the FCC got involved, from the 3+ wireline and 5+ wireless providers in my area (San Francisco)

3) The fact that you can choose from so many ISPs in SF is good for you, but you are probably well aware that in more rural parts of the country this is not the case. What will people in those areas do, if their only ISP decides to throttle a protocol that is important to them?

4) Most importantly, the traffic we create is growing constantly. Not only Downstream but Upstream. Especially since more and more "services" become decentralized. Decentralizing architectures is one of the biggest challenges we face today as internet citizens. Decentralized search engines, social networks and who knows what will come in the next decades. Decentralized Systems are more democratic, enable people to actively take part and give us back a piece of independence from the goverment (no, i am not an Anti-Gov't lunatic) as well as corporations. But for that we need to have our packets routed from A to B without being throttled, because some ISP cannot make a quick buck out of it.

Thank You for Your time!

Why do you hate yourself so much?