In a net neutral world, they would not be able to do so, any more than the phone company can charge you more to call Domino's rather than Papa John's, or the water company can charge you more per gallon for filling your pool than for washing your car.
Actually cable ISPs are perfectly happy with the customers dumping the TV part of cable, so long as they keep on the ISP part. The TV part of cable is quickly becoming the loss leader, with channels constantly increasing the price they’re charging the cable company which then either forces the cable company to increase what they charge which alienates customers or let the increase eat into their profit. The internet portion of their business is free of that, they just need to keep the throughput up, which is easier the more people that aren’t watching TV.
The problem with net neutrality is it puts the government in charge. ISPs are easier to replace than the government.
On a conservative website? REALLY??
A ‘net neutral’ world? You mean a world where the government is brought in to regulate the internet? Of course, this is the benevolent version of the government who never oversteps its power and ALWAYS is out to HELP the consumer, right? Yeah, let’s totally let the government who told us that the income tax would never be more than 10% regulate the internet. Let’s let the government who promised us that Medicare would NEVER cost more than $9B regulate the internet. Let’s let the government who told us that they’d only withhold taxes from our paychecks until WW2 was over regulate the internet! That’s the ticket! YEAH!
Netflix is charging you for a service that is increasingly monopolizing the ISPs networks. Either the ISPs can work a deal with Netflix, which will cause Netflix users to pay more for Netflix, OR the government can step in with ‘neutrality’ and the ISPs shift the cost to the end users, so EVERYONE WITH AN INTERNET CONNECTION WILL PAY FOR YOUR DAMN NETFLIX!!!!!!!
You can shift it around any way you like, but that cost is going to have to be paid by someone. It would be a much wiser decision to let the private companies work it out rather than having Daddy Government come in and start ‘regulating’.
I don’t use Netflix. I don’t plan on using Netflix and I don’t feel I should have to pay for your Netflix.
If Papa John’s was pawning the cost of delivering a pizza onto the phone company, you can damn well bank on it that the phone company would want to charge them more for the effort. Then every idiot and his retarded cousin would be on forums demanding ‘Phone Neutrality’ because some leftist Soros funded group told them it was ‘necessary’.
—————This is what “net neutrality” is about.-—————
I understand the argument. The sales pitch for net neutrality is indeed a good one. One that I even supported initially, before the details surfaced.
The problem is the details. With few exceptions, at all levels the details don’t stack up.
When you look at what the FCC officials are saying, they don’t speak the tongue of a regulator which seeks to keep the markets in order. The FCC officials speak the tongue of a totalitarian.
Same thing with the FCC’s preferred advocates. Not innocent bystanders, but directly involved cohorts. Free Press. They are marxists. As are many of the people that the primary leaders of the FCC surround themselves with. Indeed, Obama’s Czar over at the FCC is mark lloyd, who loves Chavez.
The point is this. Net neutrality is sold as something pro freedom.
But the details point to something that is very anti freedom. All of what I’ve said is provable, and has been posted on free republic for anybody to see for themselves.