Why you should care about Net Neutrality
Rohan Rajiv

“Freedom of Expression” does not get taken away without Net Neutrality. You still have freedom to do so. There is only one part of Net Neutrality that I support and that is the part about blocking competing services. So, Spectrum should not be allowed to block or throttle, say, Comcast content. But getting money from the content providers is fine. I should not have to pay for my neighbors Netflix streaming, he/she should pay for it, and he/she not have to pay for my Hulu+ streaming, if they don’t watch it. The fact is simply, you do not have the “right” to the Internet. You pay for permission to use it.

It is also tiered, based on speed and bandwidth. Everything else is usage based, like water, electricity, gasoline and even the airline seat you choose, you want 1st Class you pay for it. There are some out there who do pay for usage, and that was after Net Neutrality. Even “free” type WiFi connections in Starbucks and McDonald’s (and in our area TWC) are built in to their prices (but there are times when I don’t use WiFi at Starbucks or McDonald’s, should I have to pay for usage? I just like knowing it is there if I need it.

Competition, between the cable and phone company has made our prices lower as they compete for subscribers. When there was really only one (at first is was only the phone company and cable did not yet have it), it was extremely expensive. That is why they create bundles, landline phone, TV and Internet via either the phone company or cable.


There’s a reason Comcast typically tops the list of “most hated companies.”

Your explanation above is not reason that Comcast is one of the most hated companies. It is/was their policy to upsell you when you wanted to cancel. Then badger or threaten (read about the concept of “last mile” “common carriage” was in regard to railroads — you were not legally able to use the railroads for your own use) you into not cancelling. If you go to another provider, they tell you about the “poor” services that other ISPs offer. Basically, they lie. Comcast has yet to fully penetrate our area, so they have not been able to badger or threaten us as they have very low subscriber numbers because there are three other choices, two very high profile, our telco and cable company. I know of someone that wanted to get out of Comcast, and wanted to change to our telco, they kept badgering him and refusing to cancel, and when he finally was able to cancel, they continued badgering him for nearly a year to return offering him all kinds of incentives. He had to threaten them back with law enforcement and legal action (he’s a lawyer), then they finally have apparently backed down. Do you think he hates Comcast? Duh.

The companies that strike the best deals with Internet Service Providers will benefit the most. This is a horrible situation if you are an upcoming start up fighting incumbents with rich pockets.

This has largely been dismissed as a reason because it depends more upon SEO than “deals”. Also, this is dismissing that most of these content providers can afford to use CDNs; but unless you are trying to deliver content in direct competition to the major content providers, yes, that is stacked against you. However, if you provide a service or a product for sale, a CDN is not for you. Regarding Netflix, they are using AWS, so you also have to pay for AWS for storage and forwarding of content. Some other content providers are using Azure. The basic thing is that the bottom line, yeah profit, is that ISPs have to generate profit to innovate (to provide better services and more features), if they can’t charge for fast lanes, they’re going to get that money from the other side of their connections, the consumer side.

Finally, Google and Facebook are a duopoly (or two monopolies depending on how you view it).

They are not ISPs. Net Neutrality is about ISPs.

Except for not limiting, blocking or throttling competitors (the part that I do support), there is nothing else good about Net Neutrality. Freedom of Expression has nothing to do with Net Neutrality and it could actually make Freedom of Expression harder if the ISPs get their revenue from the consumer side and not the provider side. Say for example, they level the playing field, that means they can increase the price to where startups would have a hard time competing in. You don’t have a right to the Internet.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.