3 ms·
> > reduces choices for consumers > This, I don't get. How so? What choice is being meaningfully restricted by the requirement that you don't discriminate base
by pitaj 7y ago
> > reduces choices for consumers
> This, I don't get. How so? What choice is being meaningfully restricted by the requirement that you don't discriminate based on source or destination?
Let's say an ISP offers a plan allowing their users to have full-speed access to partner video steam providers, and slower access to their main competitors. This plan is half the price of their main plan, which gives full-speed access to everyone.
The plan I described would be illegal, as I understand it, under NN. This means that that choice had been removed as an option for consumers. There are many consumers who would use this plan: people who do very little video streaming at all, people who use their partner's video streaming service, and people who use very small competing services which fly under the radar of their throttling. Those people now have to pay more because a choice that would have benefitted them is illegal.
- lovehashbrowns 7y agoBut that's deceptive; it's cheaper for the consumer because it's a plan subsidized by the partnered video streaming services. But in the long-term, that reduces choices in different areas, e.g. fewer video stream providers because the providers that can't afford to pay off ISPs find it harder to gain an audience. Something already exacerbated by the network effect. And ISPs that have those plans have an additional guaranteed income stream, whereas smaller ISPs that can't get income from partnered websites have less money to compete with and a higher hill to climb. Additionally, ISPs aren't falling behind in speeds, available plans, and costs because they don't have money. They're profitable. They have money. What we need is a combination of NN and municipal ISPs that provide actual competition.