Net neutrality update
 

Rules dropped two months ago

~ Nothing happened ~

End of update, see you in the fall

What rules? Where they at to read?

There are no rules. There were some, but they were dropped. This led an entire set of people to say the sky would fall. You can't prove a negative, but so far the sky remains above.

To be fair, large-scale corporatization does take a while. Social Security numbers were issued with the staunch vow that they would never be used as personal identification for anything but your Social Security funds, and the people who feared it would lead to a nationwide ID system, which would then lead to tracking of our finances and the ability to steal someone's identity--they were called Chicken Littles, too. They were 100% right, but it took about 40 years before their predictions came true, and by then no one cared.

That's what this will be. In forty years we will all be paying for website bundles from our service providers--I bet they'll even call the lowest tier "basic" just like "basic cable"--and we'll just be cool with it because the progression was slow and that's how it is. And I don't even know if it's a bad thing, or if there was ever really a chance of avoiding it in the long run anyway. It wouldn't hurt for us to swing at least a little back toward a model where people expect to pay for quality information. But I'm 100% confident that there will come a day, before the two of us die, where websites are blocked by service providers and there is a complex but completely legal process by which CNN and AT&T have to negotiate over how much of AT&T's "news bundle subscription" price will be passed on to CNN--just like Netflix/Hulu/Amazon currently pay their content creators and demand exclusivity in certain contracts.

Remember when you could get any cable TV channel by pointing a big satellite dish at them, but then they scrambled it so you had to get a de-scrambler, or pay for the Cable companies box, but at least it was ad-free (because we were paying for it directly), but then they started airing ads, but at least the content was really good and interesting, so they crammed it full of ads, but then the content started to decline in quality, and anyway... now there is over 9000 channels full of rapid-fire ad cycles, its not even as good as FREE broadcast TV used to be, and they make a billion gazillion dollars from it.

But "I'm sure" they won't do that with the internet, because they're just gonna "be cool" and decide NOT to make another billion gazillion dollars.

Everyone has the cable model in mind. The cable model is broken. It's not going to work on the Internet.

Now that the cable box is two-way, the vast percentage of our time is spent on websites that we ourselves build. The channels are us, and limiting availability to them hurts the channels!

You could say that, for example, Youtube (which is millions of times larger and more important than CNN) would be in a position to make a deal with ATT. Suppose half of ATT subscribers do not have access to YouTube. That in turn means that YouTube loses all the revenue that it generates from those subscribers. It ALSO means that it loses all the content providers who use AT&T and don't want to pay. So now it is losing money on AT&T subscribers and non-AT&T subscribers.

Everything is different, now!

I believe that large-scale content providers are sophisticated enough to negotiate licensing deals with the regional ISP monopolies.

So as long as you're a million times more powerful than CNN, you'll be fine!

Sounds like AT&T has them over a barrel in your example. AT&T also is one of the companies that opposed net neutrality, while Google supported it.


While, outside of your example, Google probably has enough market dominance to mitigate that issue, AT&T certainly can exert the kind of pressure you describe on smaller and/or newer companies.

The power of YouTube: by limiting access to YouTube, or charging for it, AT&T loses a third of their subscribers to other providers.

We all know. We are not on the Intenet because of the name on the cable box/router. We are on the Internet because of YouTube. If we can switch, we will. If switching becomes important to a good chunk of us, new providers will arrive immediately.

CNN now uses YouTube to reach and monetize non-cable subscribers. Everything's different, now and far more interconnected. There is not much game in limiting. The game is in providing more and better services. MORE access to the YouTubes of the world.

Switch to whom? Verizon? Comcast? Most people may not even have access to all three of those, let alone others. And AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast can charge newcomer ISPs to connect to them.


Plus, you know, my second paragraph. Google or Netflix might be able to threaten to take away a third of AT&T's subscribers, but can Vimeo?

This is a basic disagreement about what market forces do.

Either they are designed to "provide better stuff," or to "make money."

But then how come I have to have Hulu to get some of my shows? Netflix would love to give me access to that content, but Hulu offered them more for an exclusive deal. Soon, I'm going to have to have a separate Disney streaming service, too, if my kids want to watch any of those movies, because Disney is banking that we'll pay a premium once their content is restricted more than it is now.

If AT&T cut off YouTube for the hell of it, then sure, we could switch to Spectrum internet instead. But what happens when AT&T negotiates an exclusivity contract that says the other guys can't have YouTube?

T-mobile.

Why would Vimeo limit their ability to build their channel? Why would any smaller website?

That is the limited game in limiting the audience: in things that are already monetized by intellectual property and already limited in that way.