[ale] Republicans’ “Internet Freedom Act” would wipe out net neutrality | Ars Technica

[Robert Reese]

Sunday, March 8, 2015, 12:16:51 PM, Damon wrote:

> Like the other poster, I don't see a monopoly.  I jump from comcast     to AT at T as it suites me.  I could go dish if I want.  You can go    
> digital TV over the air with a very minimal investment for 100% free     delivery.  Of course, I don't subscribe to ANYBODIES tv content,    
> only Internet service.  But seeing as how  you can watch so much     junk on the Internet, via smart TVs, via providers like Crackle,     HBO, Hulu, etc, where is the monopoly?

You are either attached to the broadband industry, or you aren't looking very hard.  Show me the AT&T connection that delivers the bandwidth of Comcast? Show me your alternative to Comcast for the same bandwidth?  Do you have a choice in cable providers? If so, you are in the extreme minority.



> Does not Comcast have a right to say who will use their circuit and     for how much?  

For end-users, yes they do. But that is all they have a right to say whom and for how much.  


> And your contract with Hulu has nothing to do with    
> Hulo's contract with Comcast.

Bull. If Comcast was able to charge Hulu and the end-user double for the same connection, Hulu turns around and passes that charge back to the customer.  Remember, Intellectual Property is also a monopoly on that content. If you don't like the bill, then your choice isn't to watch your show in another service, it is to not watch your show at all, and hope that in a few years it will be available on another service.

The customer is already paying Comcast for access to content. Whatever that content may be. Comcast doesn't have a right to go to that content provider and say, "My monopolized customer wants access to your content. Lemme make you an offer you can't refuse."

But since Comcast is also a content provider, as are Time Warner and others, if Comcast were to go to all other content providers demanding larger payments, then my Netflix bill would be more than cable television, which suits Comcast just fine.  

How?  Simple. Intellectual Property is a monopoly. Broadband access is a monopoly.  With Comcast, you have a monopoly on access and a monopoly on its content.  One monopoly is very bad. Two monopolies inside a vertical market and it is a worst-case scenario.  

Still don't see the monopoly?


> and I totally fail to see how separating out "content providers"     from "creators" would do anything other than make it more expensive     to "create content". 

Open your eyes.  Do the math.  You've already supported the argument that content creators are doing just fine without also being content providers.