Many believe they should not be able to “censor” or otherwise control access to anyone who is paying their fare share for use of the “cable” (as long as the service being provided is of course “legal”).
There’s an entire world of vague terms in that paragraph that require definition. But more to the point, I don’t see how it would be in the best interests of any ISP to gate a customer. If there’s nothing to be gained, the regulation has no purpose.
That is the fundamental issue. I don’t believe anyone is disagreeing with paying for ISP services being used.
Well, let’s cross that bridge when we come to it. I dislike regulating against hypotheticals.
Now, how would you feel if your ISP or Cellular provider was also able to charge you more for the specific rights to access Netflix, in addition to the subscription fees you are paying Netflix directly verses a different amount for some other comparable service that is transported through the same pipe?
Not a problem. I just change providers.
The NN legislation was simply designed to prevent that.
I believe that other laws already on the books prevent that as well.
Now, let’s not bring Google and Facebook into this as it adds an entirely new dimension to the problem. Have you noticed how quiet both have been through this process? Why? Because they are already controlling the content you see and are being challenged under different laws from all over the world for doing so.
Unfortunately, in the ISP world, there is no “free” market as there is virtually no competition.
Again, I believe that should be handled through existing antitrust law.
Kady, I agree with your suspicion that there is some legislation needed but when any new legislation is introduced, we’ll be back in the same argument. Fundamentally, what is the difference between an ISP and a phone company (since most ISPs are actually phone companies too). Social media and the internet as been described by some and the “new” phone. Both are providing flow of information (some voice, some content) and neither should be in a position to censor or control that for self serving purposes.
Back in the day, ATT was broken up because they provided both land and cellular service. They were broken up into regional operating companies, and in the decades hence, ATT (which chose the cellular service and got out of the land line biz) has gone ahead and re-acquired all the operating companies. Why the government didn’t step in is beyond me.
Where this is going is still anti trust law. There are land phone lines, there is cellular service, there is internet access. In my view, there is no reason why a company should own all three.
Why couldn’t the NN legislation have been modified to address these newer concerns not just completely cancelled without any “fail safe”? We just threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Because it’s all political, obviously.