4 ms·
Net neutrality isn't about charging consumers a different price depending on what services they use. Providers like Verizon want to exploit their control of the
by gamble 16y ago
Net neutrality isn't about charging consumers a different price depending on what services they use. Providers like Verizon want to exploit their control of the infrastructure to extort kickbacks from web-based businesses.
Take VOIP, for example. It won't be VOIP as a whole that receives priority access, but Skype VOIP - and in exchange, Skype will kick a portion of their revenue back to Verizon. Verizon gets a bit of juice and Skype doesn't have to worry about competing with other VOIP providers. It will be invisible to users.
A similar process happened in the video rental business when Blockbuster signed a deal with the movie studios to pay less upfront for videos, while kicking back some of their rental revenue to the studios. Whereas an independent rental store might pay $100 for a tape, Blockbuster paid almost nothing - the independents went out of business, and video rental became a Blockbuster-dominated monoculture.
- thebigshane 16y agoExtortion is illegal with or without Net Neutrality. Skype and Verizon are both only in business because users find the services worth their money. That can change. If users are getting ripped off by shitty service, then it has ceased to be invisible to the users. Blockbuster is a horrible example. A lot of good that deal did them! This monopolized monoculture you describe has been crushed and blown to bits long ago by Netflix, Amazon, Apple and the rest of the internet. These are conspiracy theories, not rational arguments.
- gamble 16y ago> Blockbuster is a horrible example. A lot of good that deal did them! This monopolized monoculture you describe has been crushed and blown to bits long ago by Netflix, Amazon, Apple and the rest of the internet. Too bad Verizon hadn't thought about shaking down online video rental companies a few years ago. Blockbuster could have given them a sweet deal.
- ericd 16y agoIt took far, far too long for Blockbuster to feel the effects of that. I really don't want things to be terrible for 15 years while a practice like this catches up to them. Besides, it sets a terrible precedent. And there are many services that are ripoffs that are largely below the consciousness of consumers.
- thebigshane 16y agoSo lets say Blockbuster, as a benefactor if said agreement, became a monopoly for... 5 years? maybe 10? In this example, how were things that terrible? Independent movie rental shops couldn't compete? What else? Of course I don't want things to be terrible for 15 years, but I haven't heard anything that would lead me to reasonably believe it would be. If wireless internet remains less-regulated than wired for 5-10 years, what do you expect will happen? Verizon and Google will team up, hike wireless prices, block torrents and censor content? Maybe we should let events play out a little more before crying out that our internet freedoms are being trampled by faceless mega-corporations. Maybe Google, Verizon, FCC, and other agencies aren't sure yet how best to compromise on this complicated issue. Maybe demanding a non-negotiable "everything is free (as in freedom)" policy isn't the best response 1 day after a vague press release.