Commentary
Who Pays The Price For The Loss Of Net Neutrality?
- by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, December 18, 2017
Net neutrality is gone -- at least for now. That is, unless Congress intervenes and tries to put the kibosh on things.
Among the chief overriding concerns, your internet service provider might speed up and/or slow specific websites. This might work against some big digital video platforms that are controlled by Netflix, Google’s YouTube, and Amazon, which are against abandoning the net-neutrality rules.
Net neutrality means Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform or application.
It's no surprise that big digital video companies, among many others, are concerned about this change, especially when it impacts some traditional media/communication owners that are now in the driver’s seat.
advertisement
advertisement
Playing favorites? Will Comcast’s internet service business push Hulu more than Netflix? What if AT&T offers preferential treatment for DirecTV Now, rather than Sling TV?
Supporters of getting rid of net neutrality would say Comcast does not favor CNBC over Fox Business -- or NBC Sports’ NBCSN over Fox Sports FS1. Many claim there are specific federal regulations or rules against such over-reaching activity. (Any violations will be handled after the fact by the FTC, not the FCC.)
But what about the internet? Is it the same? Is the internet a utility that should be under federal regulation? Internet providers -- AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, T-Mobile -- don’t think so.
It seems there is a big company/small start-up entrepreneur dynamic at work here.
Bigger internet content companies -- Google’s YouTube, Netflix, and Amazon -- have the wherewithal to pay for faster access if Internet providers seek higher payments from them. Smaller companies? Not so much. Then think further down the food chain: Will all these costs be passed on to consumers?
The Trump Administration believes in a regulation-free marketplace so competition can do its work and drive down prices for consumers.
But history says those efforts rarely result in a favorable consumer outcome.
Wayne Friedman is West Coast Editor of MediaPost. You can reach Wayne at wayne@mediapost.com.
Who paid the price in 2014 before net neutrality was even a thing? Nobody. Critics can worry about the worst case scenario for consumers but the fact remains that ending net neutrality means more services for the consumer. Big business competes for creating the best deal for consumers but big government too frequently creates a one-size-fits-all service. Terrific for bureaucrats and the voters who worry about the worst case, but bad for the consumer who wants more choices. I'm not worried at all that internet providers will now go out of their way to anger their customers, except maybe the bandwidth hogs.
Well said Douglas, my bet is that absolutely nothing will change. The internet was operating fine for 30 years before net neutrality.
Well said Douglas, my bet is that absolutely nothing will change. The internet was operating fine for 30 years before net neutrality.
Well said Douglas, my bet is that absolutely nothing will change. The internet was operating fine for 30 years before net neutrality.
“Terrific for bureaucrats and the voters who worry about the worst case, but bad for the consumer who wants more choices.” What absolute utter nonsense. Statements such as this come from non-existent bots or the uninformed and mislead. The reality: Major cable companies in the US control the access to the internet for most households. And these same companies all have a great desire to drive viewers to their business interests, particularly now that OTT’s are popping up left and right and they are losing viewers because of it. Think about it – what better way is there then to limit if not eliminate the competition then by making it harder for them to exist. The consumer will not have more choice, but instead will be pigeon holed into what these cableco’s want them to see. There’s gotta be a bank account in Switzerland with a whole lot of zeros following the first digit with a file name of Pai on it.
Controlling messaging is the first steps to totalitarianism. Before 2014...throttling and increased costs. Net Neutrality didn't come out of a vacuum where Fux News et al gets their info and takes their addicted addled audience down through the vortex of garbage.
Are you absolutely sure Tom?
Paula, I have to ask. Was "Fux News" a typo or have you just more accurately named one of the news services? PMSL.
John, 8 ball in the side pocket.
Douglas and Tom: I'm guessing that when you saw Ajit Pai's "seven things you can still do on the internet after net neutrality" you saw it as a good thing, rather than the transparent, entitled and ugly insult to our intelligence and common sense that it was?
What an incredibly intellectually weak article and argument! If you're not going to go into the subtlety and complexity, then go with the simple...
Who has benefited most in the two years of regulated NN?
That would be a good place to start. You could then confirm the answer by asking another simple question...
Who is fighting hardest... both directly and through sponsorship of "grassroots" lobbying organizations... to keep FCC regulation?
Really - answering those questions is as easy as looking up from your Netflix movie long enough to check your Facebook feed. Or you could just Google the anwer.