8 ms·

People are dropping cable due to the heavy-handed control and lack of choice. Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? If Comcast is going to try to cha

People are dropping cable due to the heavy-handed control and lack of choice. Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? If Comcast is going to try to charge me more to be able to access Netflix, I'm gone.

shanusmagnus 9y ago
To where?
yobrien 9y ago
My apartment complex has a contract with AT&T. I either have ATT or I don't have anyone. I can't be "gone". I just have to suck it up and pay unless I want to go to the library for basic internet then.
- username223 9y ago
  Talk to your neighbors and offer to split the internet bill. This doesn't solve the long-term problem, but at least it hurts the local internet monopoly.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    I really like your idea, but it has legal implications (accountability) because your neighbours would end up doing things on the internet on your account or vice versa. I would suggest to do this in combination with a VPN but 1) even with OpenVPN those are often insecure 2) they cost additional money 3) with these new FCC rules their bandwidth might get limited.
    - username223 9y ago
      If your ISP cracks down, you can always go to the local Starbucks or library to torrent movies. And since the few people who share the WAP all know each other, they can talk things out.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        Not if the library or Starbucks have an ISP with similarly restrictive policies.
        username223 9y ago
        They generally don't. Try it.
      - Fnoord 9y ago
        WAP, Now that's a term I've not heard in a long time, a long time [1]. I don't know about Starbucks or the USA but many places here with open WiFi have, well, open WiFi (no encryption on connection) and they have abysmal speed. I mean we are talking about multiple customers, on 2,4 GHz WiFi, in the neighborhood (city) with dense 2,4 GHz coverage. What could possibly go wrong? Plus, indeed here that type of business is just on cable or DSL themselves. Who'd be under the scrutiny of the same QoS shenanigans. Then again, we got net neutrality. For the time being. I really hope the USA keeps net neutrality. The feeling that such a civilized, rich, advanced country would lose such an important right fills my eyes with tears. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Application_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Application_Protocol
        username223 9y ago
        WAP = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_access_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_access_point If you visit the US, you will find that most internet access sucks, but that public libraries are surprisingly decent. You won't be playing "Call of Duty: Kill Nazis 2017" on it, but it's perfectly decent for most uses.
        Fnoord 9y ago
        Oh, that. I always just call that AP. I'm glad you guys & gals got quality libraries on the other side of the pond. I can't speak for EU but here in NL they're dwindling both in quality as well as in size and amount. I find that problematic, as there are two big interest groups who benefit from public libraries: the poor, and the elder.
  - vel0city 9y ago
    From what I gather in the brief comment, the apartment complex only allowed AT&T to install cabling to the building, so those apartment buildings are only serviced by AT&T. The apartment complex will not allow another ISP to dig up their property to install internet service for tenants, leading to an exclusive AT&T monopoly. I've had friends in similar apartment buildings. Calling other ISPs operating across the street led nowhere, as those ISPs would just say "we do not service that address."
    - ni-hil 9y ago
      I think what he was suggesting was sharing one AT&T contract with his neighbors
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      FCC instituted rules in 2008 abolishing the payola-style deals that stifle ISP competition in apartment buildings [0], but in the biggest surprise ever, the apartment owners and would-be-monopolist ISPs have been avoiding compliance by hiding the exclusivity part of their contracts. The apartment owner simply leaves open the prospect that another ISP could install access, but never actually allows them to do so. Or they make the now-legally-unenforceable exclusivity clauses of their contracts severable, but those enforcing the entire contract never actually know which of the clauses in it are invalid. So the clauses continue to be enforced in practice, by people who do not know they should be ignored. If you can't get competing services in your apartment complex, get a lawyer and sue the owner. [0] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280908A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280908A1.p...
      - lotsofpulp 9y ago
        Getting a lawyer and suing the owner is not a reasonable thing to ask of people living in apartments.
        logfromblammo 9y ago
        No, it isn't, but nor is it reasonable for an apartment owner to establish service monopolies on their property at the expense of their renters. What alternative would you suggest?
  - superasn 9y ago
    But what if someone in your neighbor's house likes to download torrent or visit sites that gets you into trouble. Wouldn't that be a huge responsibility?
    - username223 9y ago
      "Sorry, someone cracked my password." Then kick the idiot off your wifi, just like you would deal with a bad house guest.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  People also have the option of the cellular network via their phones, though that's not a true substitute for a wired ISP.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    DSL (with VDSL pretty much FTTC), cable (also pretty much FTTC), LTE (if 50 ms latency and relatively low bandwidth cap is OK), and FTTH (if you're lucky and live in such an area) are the 4 options. It is going to be different everywhere in the USA (and world) but FTTH isn't available everywhere, and its not uncommon that either DSL or cable is unreliable.
jjoonathan 9y ago
To where? Or are you one of those lucky few who have a choice of ISP?
- e1ven 9y ago
  It's not there yet, but mobile broadband is becoming increasingly viable. It's far from ideal, but 4 (soon 3) competitors are better than the 1 choice I have for wired broadband.
  - tehwebguy 9y ago
    Sure, with tiny data caps and even more artificial restrictions on speeds and content.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Mobile broadband also has an oligopoly (with some of the same players, hi AT&T), and all the provider power issues that apply to fixed broadband;the neutrality rules being repealed applied to them, too (but even they allowed mobile operators more non-neutral action.) I don't know why you think mobile broadband is in any way going to be better in the non-neutral net.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - cortesoft 9y ago
    It is unusable for gaming.
- rhino369 9y ago
  The vast majority have some choice. The average household can choose between their telecom or their cable company. In some areas one or both of those companies don't provide broadband, but in the bulk of locations they do. And while 4g service isn't a true replacement, it provides enough competition to prevent the AOL-ization of the internet. At a certain point, people would choose more expensive wireless over absurdly locked down wireline. So while Comcast does have a monopoly in some areas, people would switch to Fios or Uverse or local DSL in the areas without monopoly if they tried anything too bad. Hypothetically comcast could try to monetize only in monopoly areas, but that would be a hard sell and it would be very transparent.
eduren 9y ago
>Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? It's profitable and with their lobbying, they can protect themselves from competition. If cable companies had the opportunity to cut streaming services at the knees 10 years ago (and the foresight to understand how it would affect their market) you bet they would have. This is as anti-consumer as you can get.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> People are dropping cable due to the heavy-handed control and lack of choice. Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? Because the cable companies are the ISPs, and without ISPs acting differently, there's less impetus for people to ditch their cable companies as cable companies. Especially when the phone/cable/ISP firms can block or tax into submission services that compete with their phone and video offerings by virtue of their control of internet access.
- ams6110 9y ago
  I don't know anyone who has a land-line phone anymore. I know many people who have dropped cable. It won't be that easy to force people back to those things now that they have experienced the alternative.
  - bunderbunder 9y ago
    But it sure will be a heck of a lot easier if the FCC's got your back with regulation that supports anticompetitive behavior.
sharemywin 9y ago
you won't see it. they will force netflix to pay them more. And the charge will be passed on to all subscribers.
- ams6110 9y ago
  That's fine. Then I can decide if I want to pay that price for Netflix or not. I also have Amazon Prime video, and Youtube, and etc. so I have several competing choices.
  - stefantheard 9y ago
    It would be more interesting if Netflix passed it on to subscribers specifically from the ISP that charges them. Then you can as a consumer make a better decision factoring in the increased price of goods with one ISP over another.
    - sharemywin 9y ago
      Don't kid yourself the cable companies will act like a cartel.
    - philipov 9y ago
      Because people would have to move to change ISPs, there isn't any incentive for them to compete with each other. Network infrastructure is a natural monopoly, afterall. The best you ever get is a duopoly between fiber and cable, if you're lucky.
    - takeda 9y ago
      The crux here is that consumers typically have choice between Comcast and Comcast or Spectrum and Spectrum. That's why we need NN. I actually think (and this should be done in addition to NN, not instead) is to encourage local city government to provide Internet access and even allowing smaller companies to lease the infrastructure to them. This would bring back competition again, and the money from leasing would cover cost of maintaining the network and maybe even bring income to the city.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dzdt 9y ago
How about if Comcast charges Netflix more to be able to access you? [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/12/comcastlevel3/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/12/comcastlevel3/
- glenneroo 9y ago
  Isn't it the same though? Netflix (and other sites) will be more or less forced to pass those charges on to the consumers.
  - snoman 9y ago
    Yes, which is immediately a problem when Netflix is competing with the cable company or one of its subsidiaries (which is the case) that don't have to pay those costs (or as much). It allows the cable company to effectively tax the competition.
    - dhimes 9y ago
      This is one of the biggest issues I have with it.
- Spivak 9y ago
  This dispute is way more nuanced than you're presenting. The article you posted picks a winner pretty early on bit actually presents the situation pretty well. Any company Netflix buys transit from ends up using up all the goodwill of settlement-free peering agreements, doesn't want to actually pay for the traffic, tries to route around problem, and then gets frustrated when Comcast doesn't let them.
  - acetheface 9y ago
    As a consumer Im paying Comcast for quality access to all of the internet. Its their job to deliver on that. If they allow their peering points with T1 providers to clog up, they are not delivering on the service I purchased. Also, Comcast isn't a transit provider. They're an eyeball network and should expect heavy inbound traffic levels. Also look here: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/822 https://www.peeringdb.com/net/822 Their locations are all in the states. Most settlement free agreements require diverse meeting points around the world. Right now the big providers are hauling Comcast traffic across the oceans. So their large market share in the US is already getting them preferential treatment from the other providers.
rglover 9y ago
> Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? When you control what people see, you control what people think. Dismiss that as tinfoil malarky if you will.
- rkowalick 9y ago
  I don’t think it as as ‘tinfoil’ as people may suggest. Moves like this combined with the lift on local news station ownership restrictions make plans to ‘control what people see’ more and more plausible.
  - gech 9y ago
    As long as my guys (Republicans) are winning and our ideas (conservatism) are pushed through, I'm happy and I don't give a hoot about what twisted ways they use to win politically. I'll also criticize Democrats for doing the exact thing, or deflect any bad-doing by my guys to point to Democrats as my go-to defense.
    - nasredin 9y ago
      Poe's Law applies here (at least for me). It is so sad we live at a time when one doesn't know if this is sarcasm or a genuine sentiment.
1001101 9y ago
> People are dropping cable due to the heavy-handed control and lack of choice. Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? Because it's a monopolistic monoculture, and they can do whatever they want and get away with it. In this age, having corporate controlled information choke points is a feature that those who want to control what the citizenry think and say are no doubt in love with.
dhimes 9y ago
Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? Because there is a lot of money in that model if you can make it so there is no where else to go. (But you knew that- you were speaking rhetorically. I am the voice in your head.)
mmanfrin 9y ago
You have choice. I live in this little place that the Internet hardly knows called Berkeley, CA, home of one of the original 4 IMPs of the very first networked connection -- and my only choice above 20mbps is Comcast.
azernik 9y ago
Because ISPs are cable companies, and are the ones who are practicing that failing model, and are working very hard to prop it up and extend it.
scruple 9y ago
> If Comcast is going to try to charge me more to be able to access Netflix, I'm gone. This is what I don't understand. All of these businesses seem to be missing that point. Or, I am over-valuing it. Or something else that I don't understand or see. But, I have the exact same perspective and stance as you. If I have to pay more to watch streaming video or play video games with my friends or download my Steam library or my Kindle titles, well, I'm very likely to just opt out of all of that. I am 36 years old and I have never once paid for a cable television subscription in the last 18 years that I've been on my own for _exactly_ this same reason. I am not going to pay for 3 separate and/or premium packages just to get access to the one piece of content that I actually want (sports programming).
s73ver_ 9y ago
If your ISP decides to do the same thing, where are you gonna go? The vast majority of Americans do not have significant choice when it comes to service providers.
patmcc 9y ago
>>>If Comcast is going to try to charge me more to be able to access Netflix, I'm gone. If you have competitors to choose from, sure. If you don't? Or if all the competitors do the same thing?

shanusmagnus 9y ago

To where?

yobrien 9y ago

My apartment complex has a contract with AT&T. I either have ATT or I don't have anyone. I can't be "gone". I just have to suck it up and pay unless I want to go to the library for basic internet then.

username223 9y ago
Talk to your neighbors and offer to split the internet bill. This doesn't solve the long-term problem, but at least it hurts the local internet monopoly.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  I really like your idea, but it has legal implications (accountability) because your neighbours would end up doing things on the internet on your account or vice versa. I would suggest to do this in combination with a VPN but 1) even with OpenVPN those are often insecure 2) they cost additional money 3) with these new FCC rules their bandwidth might get limited.
  - username223 9y ago
    If your ISP cracks down, you can always go to the local Starbucks or library to torrent movies. And since the few people who share the WAP all know each other, they can talk things out.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Not if the library or Starbucks have an ISP with similarly restrictive policies.
      - username223 9y ago
        They generally don't. Try it.
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      WAP, Now that's a term I've not heard in a long time, a long time [1]. I don't know about Starbucks or the USA but many places here with open WiFi have, well, open WiFi (no encryption on connection) and they have abysmal speed. I mean we are talking about multiple customers, on 2,4 GHz WiFi, in the neighborhood (city) with dense 2,4 GHz coverage. What could possibly go wrong? Plus, indeed here that type of business is just on cable or DSL themselves. Who'd be under the scrutiny of the same QoS shenanigans. Then again, we got net neutrality. For the time being. I really hope the USA keeps net neutrality. The feeling that such a civilized, rich, advanced country would lose such an important right fills my eyes with tears. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Application_Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Application_Protocol
      - username223 9y ago
        WAP = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_access_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_access_point If you visit the US, you will find that most internet access sucks, but that public libraries are surprisingly decent. You won't be playing "Call of Duty: Kill Nazis 2017" on it, but it's perfectly decent for most uses.
        Fnoord 9y ago
        Oh, that. I always just call that AP. I'm glad you guys & gals got quality libraries on the other side of the pond. I can't speak for EU but here in NL they're dwindling both in quality as well as in size and amount. I find that problematic, as there are two big interest groups who benefit from public libraries: the poor, and the elder.
- vel0city 9y ago
  From what I gather in the brief comment, the apartment complex only allowed AT&T to install cabling to the building, so those apartment buildings are only serviced by AT&T. The apartment complex will not allow another ISP to dig up their property to install internet service for tenants, leading to an exclusive AT&T monopoly. I've had friends in similar apartment buildings. Calling other ISPs operating across the street led nowhere, as those ISPs would just say "we do not service that address."
  - ni-hil 9y ago
    I think what he was suggesting was sharing one AT&T contract with his neighbors
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    FCC instituted rules in 2008 abolishing the payola-style deals that stifle ISP competition in apartment buildings [0], but in the biggest surprise ever, the apartment owners and would-be-monopolist ISPs have been avoiding compliance by hiding the exclusivity part of their contracts. The apartment owner simply leaves open the prospect that another ISP could install access, but never actually allows them to do so. Or they make the now-legally-unenforceable exclusivity clauses of their contracts severable, but those enforcing the entire contract never actually know which of the clauses in it are invalid. So the clauses continue to be enforced in practice, by people who do not know they should be ignored. If you can't get competing services in your apartment complex, get a lawyer and sue the owner. [0] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280908A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280908A1.p...
    - lotsofpulp 9y ago
      Getting a lawyer and suing the owner is not a reasonable thing to ask of people living in apartments.
      - logfromblammo 9y ago
        No, it isn't, but nor is it reasonable for an apartment owner to establish service monopolies on their property at the expense of their renters. What alternative would you suggest?
- superasn 9y ago
  But what if someone in your neighbor's house likes to download torrent or visit sites that gets you into trouble. Wouldn't that be a huge responsibility?
  - username223 9y ago
    "Sorry, someone cracked my password." Then kick the idiot off your wifi, just like you would deal with a bad house guest.
forapurpose 9y ago
People also have the option of the cellular network via their phones, though that's not a true substitute for a wired ISP.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  DSL (with VDSL pretty much FTTC), cable (also pretty much FTTC), LTE (if 50 ms latency and relatively low bandwidth cap is OK), and FTTH (if you're lucky and live in such an area) are the 4 options. It is going to be different everywhere in the USA (and world) but FTTH isn't available everywhere, and its not uncommon that either DSL or cable is unreliable.

jjoonathan 9y ago

To where? Or are you one of those lucky few who have a choice of ISP?

e1ven 9y ago
It's not there yet, but mobile broadband is becoming increasingly viable. It's far from ideal, but 4 (soon 3) competitors are better than the 1 choice I have for wired broadband.
- tehwebguy 9y ago
  Sure, with tiny data caps and even more artificial restrictions on speeds and content.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Mobile broadband also has an oligopoly (with some of the same players, hi AT&T), and all the provider power issues that apply to fixed broadband;the neutrality rules being repealed applied to them, too (but even they allowed mobile operators more non-neutral action.) I don't know why you think mobile broadband is in any way going to be better in the non-neutral net.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cortesoft 9y ago
  It is unusable for gaming.
rhino369 9y ago
The vast majority have some choice. The average household can choose between their telecom or their cable company. In some areas one or both of those companies don't provide broadband, but in the bulk of locations they do. And while 4g service isn't a true replacement, it provides enough competition to prevent the AOL-ization of the internet. At a certain point, people would choose more expensive wireless over absurdly locked down wireline. So while Comcast does have a monopoly in some areas, people would switch to Fios or Uverse or local DSL in the areas without monopoly if they tried anything too bad. Hypothetically comcast could try to monetize only in monopoly areas, but that would be a hard sell and it would be very transparent.

eduren 9y ago

>Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? It's profitable and with their lobbying, they can protect themselves from competition. If cable companies had the opportunity to cut streaming services at the knees 10 years ago (and the foresight to understand how it would affect their market) you bet they would have. This is as anti-consumer as you can get.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> People are dropping cable due to the heavy-handed control and lack of choice. Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? Because the cable companies are the ISPs, and without ISPs acting differently, there's less impetus for people to ditch their cable companies as cable companies. Especially when the phone/cable/ISP firms can block or tax into submission services that compete with their phone and video offerings by virtue of their control of internet access.

ams6110 9y ago
I don't know anyone who has a land-line phone anymore. I know many people who have dropped cable. It won't be that easy to force people back to those things now that they have experienced the alternative.
- bunderbunder 9y ago
  But it sure will be a heck of a lot easier if the FCC's got your back with regulation that supports anticompetitive behavior.

sharemywin 9y ago

you won't see it. they will force netflix to pay them more. And the charge will be passed on to all subscribers.

ams6110 9y ago
That's fine. Then I can decide if I want to pay that price for Netflix or not. I also have Amazon Prime video, and Youtube, and etc. so I have several competing choices.
- stefantheard 9y ago
  It would be more interesting if Netflix passed it on to subscribers specifically from the ISP that charges them. Then you can as a consumer make a better decision factoring in the increased price of goods with one ISP over another.
  - sharemywin 9y ago
    Don't kid yourself the cable companies will act like a cartel.
  - philipov 9y ago
    Because people would have to move to change ISPs, there isn't any incentive for them to compete with each other. Network infrastructure is a natural monopoly, afterall. The best you ever get is a duopoly between fiber and cable, if you're lucky.
  - takeda 9y ago
    The crux here is that consumers typically have choice between Comcast and Comcast or Spectrum and Spectrum. That's why we need NN. I actually think (and this should be done in addition to NN, not instead) is to encourage local city government to provide Internet access and even allowing smaller companies to lease the infrastructure to them. This would bring back competition again, and the money from leasing would cover cost of maintaining the network and maybe even bring income to the city.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dzdt 9y ago

How about if Comcast charges Netflix more to be able to access you? [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/12/comcastlevel3/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/12/comcastlevel3/

glenneroo 9y ago
Isn't it the same though? Netflix (and other sites) will be more or less forced to pass those charges on to the consumers.
- snoman 9y ago
  Yes, which is immediately a problem when Netflix is competing with the cable company or one of its subsidiaries (which is the case) that don't have to pay those costs (or as much). It allows the cable company to effectively tax the competition.
  - dhimes 9y ago
    This is one of the biggest issues I have with it.
Spivak 9y ago
This dispute is way more nuanced than you're presenting. The article you posted picks a winner pretty early on bit actually presents the situation pretty well. Any company Netflix buys transit from ends up using up all the goodwill of settlement-free peering agreements, doesn't want to actually pay for the traffic, tries to route around problem, and then gets frustrated when Comcast doesn't let them.
- acetheface 9y ago
  As a consumer Im paying Comcast for quality access to all of the internet. Its their job to deliver on that. If they allow their peering points with T1 providers to clog up, they are not delivering on the service I purchased. Also, Comcast isn't a transit provider. They're an eyeball network and should expect heavy inbound traffic levels. Also look here: https://www.peeringdb.com/net/822 https://www.peeringdb.com/net/822 Their locations are all in the states. Most settlement free agreements require diverse meeting points around the world. Right now the big providers are hauling Comcast traffic across the oceans. So their large market share in the US is already getting them preferential treatment from the other providers.

rglover 9y ago

> Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? When you control what people see, you control what people think. Dismiss that as tinfoil malarky if you will.

rkowalick 9y ago
I don’t think it as as ‘tinfoil’ as people may suggest. Moves like this combined with the lift on local news station ownership restrictions make plans to ‘control what people see’ more and more plausible.
- gech 9y ago
  As long as my guys (Republicans) are winning and our ideas (conservatism) are pushed through, I'm happy and I don't give a hoot about what twisted ways they use to win politically. I'll also criticize Democrats for doing the exact thing, or deflect any bad-doing by my guys to point to Democrats as my go-to defense.
  - nasredin 9y ago
    Poe's Law applies here (at least for me). It is so sad we live at a time when one doesn't know if this is sarcasm or a genuine sentiment.

1001101 9y ago

> People are dropping cable due to the heavy-handed control and lack of choice. Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? Because it's a monopolistic monoculture, and they can do whatever they want and get away with it. In this age, having corporate controlled information choke points is a feature that those who want to control what the citizenry think and say are no doubt in love with.

dhimes 9y ago

Why would ISPs want emulate that failing model? Because there is a lot of money in that model if you can make it so there is no where else to go. (But you knew that- you were speaking rhetorically. I am the voice in your head.)

mmanfrin 9y ago

You have choice. I live in this little place that the Internet hardly knows called Berkeley, CA, home of one of the original 4 IMPs of the very first networked connection -- and my only choice above 20mbps is Comcast.

azernik 9y ago

Because ISPs are cable companies, and are the ones who are practicing that failing model, and are working very hard to prop it up and extend it.

scruple 9y ago

> If Comcast is going to try to charge me more to be able to access Netflix, I'm gone. This is what I don't understand. All of these businesses seem to be missing that point. Or, I am over-valuing it. Or something else that I don't understand or see. But, I have the exact same perspective and stance as you. If I have to pay more to watch streaming video or play video games with my friends or download my Steam library or my Kindle titles, well, I'm very likely to just opt out of all of that. I am 36 years old and I have never once paid for a cable television subscription in the last 18 years that I've been on my own for _exactly_ this same reason. I am not going to pay for 3 separate and/or premium packages just to get access to the one piece of content that I actually want (sports programming).

s73ver_ 9y ago

If your ISP decides to do the same thing, where are you gonna go? The vast majority of Americans do not have significant choice when it comes to service providers.

patmcc 9y ago

>>>If Comcast is going to try to charge me more to be able to access Netflix, I'm gone. If you have competitors to choose from, sure. If you don't? Or if all the competitors do the same thing?