Replies

I’m not convinced this a bad thing. I recently got an email from my ISP advising me the rules of use changed. It reads like don’t even need a good reason to drop me and with limited ISP’s in my area; this is not a good thing.

I think there’s a lot more I don’t understand about this net neutrality than I do understand.

It’s not easy and the landscape is still evolving. The terminology “net neutrality” is prejudicial. The gist of it is they don’t want ISPs to start favoring some content over others, or charging content providers (think Netflix for example) to get faster speeds. That would tilt internet use towards those companies who paid for speed and disadvantage those who cannot or will not pay for faster transmissions.

I think with the Time Warner+ATT merger, ATT has essentially rebuilt its monopoly. They control the vast majority of coaxial cable and fiber lines that deliver content. As I see it this is a problem because they also sell their own content, and provide cable tv services. They have a clear interest to protect their own content and services. IMO, the cable and fiber should be a considered a utility and ATT forced to allow alternate content providers to use the cable, allow 3rd parties to lease bulk bandwidth and market and sell their own internet access and their own cable tv programming.

If you recall during the DSL days there were multiple providers who sold DSL over the copper lines - that was because the copper line service was accessible to 3rd parties after the Ma Bell breakup. I lean to the idea that cable and fiber should be considered a utility, or at least treated like a utility, particularly because Congress gave the cable companies a legal monopoly to help defray the infrastructure development expense. Their time is up (imo, they have recouped the cost), and as we see all the regional cable companies have more or less been consolidated into what amounts to a monopoly - or darn near one anyway.