Net Neutrality: Comcast Blocking Netflix

[ShivaX]

@Ephraim

They sure will. And they’ll pass those costs right along to the consumers. Sweet, unfettered capitalism, just as Trumpai desires.

Who will also have to pay on top of that. :D

[Enidigm]

Will this make a strong push for municipal broadband? Or would municipal broadband still rely on “metered” internet to get out of the local area?

[ArmandoPenblade]

This is how the world ends. Not with a bang, but with a lot of people voting Republican.

[Wallapuctus]

It might, if ISPs weren’t lobbying state governments to outlaw municipal broadband.

The 21 Laws States Use to Crush Broadband Competition

[ShivaX]

@Wallapuctus

It might, if ISPs weren’t lobbying state governments to outlaw municipal broadband.

The 21 Laws States Use to Crush Broadband Competition

Yep…

[Murbella]

@Ephraim

Nah. Steam and Netflix are both too rich and influential to be adversely affected by this. It’s the potential future replacement for Steam or Netflix that’s really getting screwed. They won’t be able to afford to buy in.

Didn’t stop YouTube from being throttled.

[Woolen_Horde]

You just know the cable companies are going to price-tier the shit out of the Internet. They’ve been losing revenue on the TV side of things thanks to cord-cutting, and they’ll be looking to make that up on the Internet side.

[Ginger_Yellow]

Pai’s an arse, but he’s not the problem here. It’s the Republican majority on the FCC board.

Incidentally, the (new) FCC position on net neutrality is interesting in light of the DoJ’s position on the AT&T/Time Warner merger.

As AT&T has expressly recognized, however, distributors that control popular programming “have the incentive and ability to use (and indeed have used whenever and wherever they can) that control as a weapon to hinder competition.” Specifically, as DirecTV has explained, such vertically integrated programmers “can much more credibly threaten to withhold programming from rival [distributors]” and can “use such threats to demand higher prices and more favorable terms.” Accordingly, were this merger allowed to proceed, the newly combined firm likely would—just as AT&T/DirecTV has already predicted—use its control of Time Warner’s popular programming as a weapon to harm competition. AT&T/DirecTV would hinder its rivals by forcing them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more per year for Time Warner’s networks, and it would use its increased power to slow the industry’s transition to new and exciting video distribution models that provide greater choice for consumers. The proposed merger would result in fewer innovative offerings and higher bills for American families.

[Wallapuctus]

Oh please, the DOJ is fucking with that merger because Trump hates CNN. It has nothing to do with policy or the good of the people, it’s revenge.

[Woolen_Horde]

The beauty of that is that Trump provided plenty of ammunition for the other side’s lawyers thanks to his endless tweeting!

[Ginger_Yellow]

Oh, of course. It’s just funny seeing the two different arms of the government argue in completely opposite directions at exactly the same time. The FCC is saying there’s no need to worry about cable companies putting their thumb on the scale in favour of their own content, while DoJ is saying it’s a mortal threat.

The merger would thus substantially lessen competition by giving the merged company the additional leverage to charge its rival video distributors higher prices for its networks than Time Warner’s current market power would otherwise allow, making those distributors less able to compete effectively with the merged company. This harm to competition is based on a well-accepted understanding within the industry. Indeed, tellingly, both AT&T and DirecTV have recognized in public filings and internal documents that video distributors that own popular programming have the power and the incentive to harm competition.

…

Although it has concluded that “[t]raditional Pay-TV will be a cash cow business to AT&T for many years to come,” AT&T/DirecTV fears future “disruption” from emerging competitors. Consumers are beginning to see new video distribution offerings. For example, online distributors like Sling TV offer less expensive alternatives to traditional subscription television that do not require yearly contracts or cable set top boxes, but this merger would impede that innovation. AT&T/DirecTV perceives online video distribution as an attack on its business that could, in its own words, “deteriorate the value of the bundle.” Accordingly, AT&T/DirecTV intends to “work to make [online video services] less attractive.”

Or the FCC saying customers can always go to another internet provider, while the DoJ says the cable companies have effective monopolies.

American consumers have few options for traditional subscription television. For the nearly one hundred million American households that pay a monthly bill to traditional video distributors (cable, satellite, and telephone companies), this means paying higher prices year after year and waiting on hold to hear why a service technician is running late or why their monthly bill has skyrocketed.1 For traditional video distributors, this lack of competition means huge profit margins. Indeed, AT&T/DirecTV describes the traditional pay-TV model as a “cash cow” and “the golden goose.”

[Woolen_Horde]

I just submitted a reply on FCC.gov and called my Congressman. And I still feel helpless because Pajit will blow off any pro-Net Neutrality replies anyway (he has to date, even though they are overwhelming), and my Congressman is a Democrat, so he’s already on our side.

[Knightsaber]

Both Iowa Senators = ‘free market! blah blah blah double talk’

[TheWombat]

It’s the inevitable result of untrammeled capitalism endorsed by our kelptocrats who are in the pockets of the even bigger kleptocrats. And of course, all supported at the polls by the very people who will get screwed, because no one bothers to actually think anymore, only react to tribal instincts cleverly cultivated by manipulative bastards.

The real solution? Internet as a basic right and service regulated if not totally controlled by the state. Like healthcare, but yeah, not gonna happen either.

Welcome to the world the robber barons of 1890 wanted, but couldn’t have. Keep an eye out for the Pinkertons.

[triggercut]

@Woolen_Horde

I just submitted a reply on FCC.gov and called my Congressman. And I still feel helpless because Pajit will blow off any pro-Net Neutrality replies anyway (he has to date, even though they are overwhelming), and my Congressman is a Democrat, so he’s already on our side.

This, basically. FCC commissioners are appointed and shielded fairly well from political fallout for their decisions.

[KevinC]

@Knightsaber

Both Iowa Senators = ‘free market! blah blah blah double talk’

Yep, that’s the response I got from mine as well. It’s important to get the government out of the way of innovation! Regulation bad, mmmkay? When I called, they pretty much hung up on me. ;)

[Timex]

@Ginger_Yellow

Oh, of course. It’s just funny seeing the two different arms of the government argue in completely opposite directions at exactly the same time.

It’s almost as though the government was being directed to benefit one man, rather than according to any coherent ideology.

[MrGrumpy]

NY State AG:

An Open Letter to the FCC:

Specifically, for six months my office has been investigating who perpetrated a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities. Such conduct likely violates state law — yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed.

[Mark_Asher]

He’s the AG. Can’t he subpoena the information?

[MrGrumpy]

I don’t know how that works to be honest.