# Net neutrality: now what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 22, 2017, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370 "2017-11-22T04:10:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/221 "2017-11-30T20:22:20Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > A wire that connects you to the CO or head end will always be superior to wireless. It is going to have far more data capacity than OTA technologies can even theoretically approach. Any technology that improves data rates in wireless will also find its uses in RF or fiber technologies as well. You can put several times the spectrum into a single RF cable than the total wireless spectrum that is shared by everyone. Fiber just ads another order of magnitude or few to the capacity. > > Wireless may get to the point of being “good enough” (though I doubt that, as we always want more), but wired will always be better. Wirelss will be fine for your phone, but wait until all the people on your block have 4k TVs, and they want to stream movies on them. Wireless will not be able to handle that, not even theoretically, much less practically. Verizon has already demonstrated a 3-4 Gbps wireless connection. Netflix recommends 25 Mbs to stream 4k, which equates to roughly 120 simultaneous movies over that one wireless connection. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/222 "2017-11-30T21:05:03Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > It wasn’t widespread, and the ISP’s started to behave themselves under regulatory pressure. I can recollect only two incidents that bothered limited numbers of people for a short amount of time: Indian River VOIP blocking, and Comcast’s use of TCP/IP resets with Bittorrent traffic (something that happens to a lot of traffic in China, by the way, and for which there are workarounds.). Comcast and Verizon were also slowing Netflix traffic until Netflix agreed to pay them and I believe there were a couple other examples. But your sentence “the ISP’s started to behave themselves under regulatory pressure” is the thing. What good does it do to get rid of that regulation? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/223 "2017-11-30T21:16:56Z")
Yeah, I am not quite sure how “_you may not do that_” is equivalent to punishment. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/224 "2017-11-30T21:30:06Z")
I certainly hope that on December 14th the FCC makes de facto ISP monopolies illegal. Because monopolies + deregulation = :mad: After all Pai said > [@](#): > > “Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet,” Pai said in a statement today. “Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices \*so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them \*and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate.” [Emphasis added] ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/225 "2017-11-30T21:33:34Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > A wire that connects you to the CO or head end will always be superior to wireless. Always superior? :dubious: Simply not true. In general, land infrastructure is superior to wireless if it’s newer, but older copper is definitely not going to be better than some wireless. And users almost never directly connect to the CO unless they are using a higher level service such as a metro optical or Sonet, DS1/3, or something like MPLS. I’m not sure where this resistance to wireless comes from or why so many think it’s so crappy (my WAG is folks are looking at badly built WiFi systems and older, admittedly crappy satellite ISP offerings and projecting that to everything ‘wireless’). A lot of the backhaul in the US is done through wireless microwave when buried infrastructure is too costly. Much of the nation’s cellular relies on wireless backhaul as most of the towers don’t have buried infrastructure supporting them…it would cost too much. Even last mile you can do wireless…it’s just not usually cost effective to do as things stand today, not when we have so much legacy buried copper for the older phone system as well as tons of old copper broadband cable. In many other countries, they mainly use wireless everywhere, since a lot of countries don’t have legacy copper to every home or building. But even if wireless turns out to be a dead end (which doesn’t look likely), it doesn’t mean that the current ISPs or telcos can just do whatever they want and folks will never have an alternative. In my area, there are multiple vendors putting in new, modern fiber plants to replace the older ones, and if there was enough outcry from customers it would build a business plan for someone to basically cut out the current providers by gaining the capital to build new connections. Currently, it’s not worth the while of anyone to try and do that, since companies like Cable One or CenturyLink dominate locally and already have the infrastructure, but it doesn’t have to always be that way. I really don’t think this is going to be the apocalypse for the internet that folks seem to think, nor do I think that those companies will be able to do all of the grim shit folks seem to think they will do…not and stay in business. If you piss off enough customers then it will have repercussions that will either bring those companies down or force them to change. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/226 "2017-11-30T22:04:26Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Always superior? :dubious: Simply not true. In general, land infrastructure is superior to wireless if it’s newer, but older copper is definitely not going to be better than some wireless. And users almost never directly connect to the CO unless they are using a higher level service such as a metro optical or Sonet, DS1/3, or something like MPLS. > > I’m not sure where this resistance to wireless comes from or why so many think it’s so crappy > > But even if wireless turns out to be a dead end (which doesn’t look likely), it doesn’t mean that the current ISPs or telcos can just do whatever they want and folks will never have an alternative. My resistance partially comes from the fact that at least, present day, both my phones and any gadgets are significantly less reliable on wifi and 4g - both combined - than anything connected via ethernet. And partially because it won’t scale. You’re right that if you push wireless to theoretical limits, maybe you could stream compressed 4k video to people. But it won’t scale further. Each and every fiber connection represents a couple orders of magnitude more bandwidth, with a cleaner signal that will not be interrupted very often, free from noise, and it scales all the way up to terabits/second. But yeah, maybe just 1-2 4k stream per household is going to be the limits of people’s needs for data. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/227 "2017-11-30T22:12:18Z")
There are other applications that would become possible with dedicated fiber links that we can only roughly guess at. What about a camera, or several cameras, at 4k, per room, all streaming to a cloud video cache and an artificial intelligence to analyze them? It does sound like an invasion of privacy but it would allow you to tell the AI you want something with mere gestures. The system could save your life by calling the paramedics when you experience a medical emergency. And such an AI could develop it’s model of human motion and speech with a data set of 10s of millions of households. It would also make most crime a thing of the past. If a criminal enters your home - or is even caught on camera casing the place - the AI recognizes them from arrest photos and suspicious behavior at other connected homes. It informs the authorities and guarantees that the criminal’s crime spree will be short lived. It would also make false accusations a thing of the past. The reason for the “Amazon Echo murder case” is because the Echo didn’t have a camera, and so we do not actually know what happened. Another application is something called “cloud gaming”. This is where a remote system is actually rendering the video you see, so you do not have to purchase the physical hardware to do it. There could be games that use dozens of GPUs to produce life-like graphics, and a local GPU just performs some final adjustments to the image to sync it with a virtual reality headset. Another is “cloud household robotics”. The hardware to make a robot smart enough to handle every case may need too much memory and processing power for the machine to be able to give the correct response in _every_ case ever encountered. So the robot could have local control but when it encounters an unknown case or an error, it asks a cloud of a far larger system of neural networks for advice on what to do. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/228 "2017-11-30T22:21:30Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Verizon has already demonstrated a 3-4 Gbps wireless connection. Netflix recommends 25 Mbs to stream 4k, which equates to roughly 120 simultaneous movies over that one wireless connection. There are 350 homes in my neighborhood. There are not 2 cellular antennas in my neighborhood. > [@XT](#): > > Always superior? :dubious: Simply not true. In general, land infrastructure is superior to wireless if it’s newer, but older copper is definitely not going to be better than some wireless. And users almost never directly connect to the CO unless they are using a higher level service such as a metro optical or Sonet, DS1/3, or something like MPLS. Depends on how old and well maintained it is. The old stuff, RG-59 and such is kinda crappy, but can still go up to 750mhz just fine. Newer grades can go into the GHZ or higher. Around here, they stopped using rg-59 in the 90’s. All of your cable comes in through that one wire. Every channel that is offered by your cable company flow down it at the same time. That’s all the regular channels, all the digital channels, all the HD channels. All of it, all in one crappy copper wire. And DSL doesn’t necessarily connect directly to a CO, correct, (and cable doesn’t connect directly to the head end, it goes through a router first too)it often goes through a SLIC hut first. Point is is that there is a direct connection for that last mile, a direct connection that is entirely contained in a single cable, and contains far more bandwidth than can be put over the airwaves. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure where this resistance to wireless comes from or why so many think it’s so crappy (my WAG is folks are looking at badly built WiFi systems and older, admittedly crappy satellite ISP offerings and projecting that to everything ‘wireless’). A lot of the backhaul in the US is done through wireless microwave when buried infrastructure is too costly. Much of the nation’s cellular relies on wireless backhaul as most of the towers don’t have buried infrastructure supporting them…it would cost too much. Even last mile you can do wireless…it’s just not usually cost effective to do as things stand today, not when we have so much legacy buried copper for the older phone system as well as tons of old copper broadband cable. In many other countries, they mainly use wireless everywhere, since a lot of countries don’t have legacy copper to every home or building. Because less bandwidth can be carried in the air than can be carried by a single cable. And the bandwidth in the air has to be shared with those around you, even with some pretty advanced beamforming, and that cable you can get to yourself. > [@](#): > > But even if wireless turns out to be a dead end (which doesn’t look likely), it doesn’t mean that the current ISPs or telcos can just do whatever they want and folks will never have an alternative. In my area, there are multiple vendors putting in new, modern fiber plants to replace the older ones, and if there was enough outcry from customers it would build a business plan for someone to basically cut out the current providers by gaining the capital to build new connections. Currently, it’s not worth the while of anyone to try and do that, since companies like Cable One or CenturyLink dominate locally and already have the infrastructure, but it doesn’t have to always be that way. Wireless will not be a dead end. It will be useful for fulfilling the niche of mobile devices, and satelites will fill in for places where ISP’s don’t find it economical to run a wire, but it will not replace the utility function of having a physical cable (co-ax, copper pair, or fiber) linked directly to your house. Anything that makes delivery over wireless better and more efficient will also make delivery over a physical connection more efficient. > [@](#): > > I really don’t think this is going to be the apocalypse for the internet that folks seem to think, nor do I think that those companies will be able to do all of the grim shit folks seem to think they will do…not and stay in business. If you piss off enough customers then it will have repercussions that will either bring those companies down or force them to change. I don’t think it’s going to be an apocalypse. I think that we will pay a bit more for a bit less. That sort of thing happens, but we shouldn’t encourage it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/229 "2017-11-30T22:21:47Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > It does sound like an invasion of privacy but And this is the point where the idea becomes a nonstarter to a non-trivial number of people, including me. Because absent _perfect_ security your crime-spotting system will also be handing criminals my passwords and publishing porn based on my private activities. Plus, you know, cameras everywhere are creepy. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/230 "2017-12-01T00:17:28Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > I can recollect only two incidents that bothered limited numbers of people for a short amount of time: Indian River VOIP blocking, and Comcast’s use of TCP/IP resets with Bittorrent traffic (something that happens to a lot of traffic in China, by the way, and for which there are workarounds.). [A somewhat longer list](https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history) (which includes the incidents you mention). _China does it too, and there are workarounds_ doesn’t seem like a compelling argument to me. ---
**Author:** ![AI\_Proofreader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@AI\_Proofreader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AI_Proofreader)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/231 "2017-12-01T04:08:08Z")
[Organized protests on the issue of ending net neutrality set at Verizon locations nationwide](http://verizonprotests.com/) on Dec 7th, one week before the FCC vote. This is due to the latest push being, arguably, a coup courtesy of Verizon - given that Ajit Pai was [formerly a lawyer helping Verizon lobby against net neutrality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai) before being appointed to the FCC (and will undoubtedly return to them and get a giant fucking payday after his stint at the FCC ends). And who in turn appointed Julia Johnson to the FCC who [also lobbied against net neutrality on behalf of Verizon.](https://theintercept.com/2017/09/14/fcc-net-neutrality-ajit-pai-diversity-chair-julia-johnson/) In other news after reading all of Ajit Pai’s wiki page I now feel like I need a shower to wash the filth off. ---
**Author:** ![Settimo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Settimo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Settimo)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/232 "2017-12-01T20:06:37Z")
> [@AI\_Proofreader](#): > > In other news after reading all of Ajit Pai’s wiki page I now feel like I need a shower to wash the filth off. ``` Pai's leadership on this has been quite poor. He seems determined to play cocky frat boy ([here's](http://techcrunch.com/2017/11/28/fccs-ajit-pai-when-it-comes-to-an-open-internet-twitter-is-part-of-the-problem/) techcrunch's takedown of Pai's recent comments at a free market think tank event), borrowing techniques out of this administration's rhetorical karate handbook (for one, spinning it as a partisan issue; if you don't support the repeal of NN, you're some kind of shitty liberal, or a RINO), and making a false equivalency between ISPs (service providers) and Twitter (a content provider). What the FCC needs to do is set up some web pages to address the public's main concerns, show some regard for the comments posted in the comment period (separating out the mindless bots; and considering he's head of a communication agency, ask what can be done about bots interfering with public comment forums), along with displaying pledges from all the major ISPs that they aren't going to act maliciously with their new-found powers (see Comcast pledge above in post #215). Pai has a branding problem with this, and all his Trump-ish bluster and sophomorism isn't helping. ``` ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/233 "2017-12-01T20:39:58Z")
My apologies if this has already been said in this thread, but here’s another interesting angle on what the big telecoms are doing with regard to Net Neutrality. > **[Ajit Pai's Shell Game | Backchannel](https://www.wired.com/story/net-neutrality-fiber-optic-internet/)** > > Our problems are bigger than just net neutrality. And if we treat the net like the utility it is, we'll get neutrality and more. For those who talk about fiber optics, one town in North Carolina actually came up with its own solution to not having Internet: it basically made its own fiber optic network and created its own internet service. And it’s cheap and reliable. And how did companies like Comcast respond? By getting North Carolina’s legislature to make it illegal for other towns to do the same. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/234 "2017-12-01T20:42:44Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > My apologies if this has already been said in this thread, but here’s another interesting angle on what the big telecoms are doing with regard to Net Neutrality. > > [https://www.wired.com/story/net-neutrality-fiber-optic-internet/](https://www.wired.com/story/net-neutrality-fiber-optic-internet/) > > For those who talk about fiber optics, one town in North Carolina actually came up with its own solution to not having Internet: it basically made its own fiber optic network and created its own internet service. And it’s cheap and reliable. > > And how did companies like Comcast respond? > > By getting North Carolina’s legislature to make it illegal for other towns to do the same. I’m pretty sure that’s happened before. Surprisingly, big ISPs don’t want towns to offer cheap or free Internet service to its inhabitants. ---
**Author:** ![AI\_Proofreader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@AI\_Proofreader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AI_Proofreader)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/235 "2017-12-02T06:13:23Z")
> [@Settimo](#): > > **Pai’s leadership on this has been quite poor**. He seems determined to play cocky frat boy ([here’s](http://techcrunch.com/2017/11/28/fccs-ajit-pai-when-it-comes-to-an-open-internet-twitter-is-part-of-the-problem/) techcrunch’s takedown of Pai’s recent comments at a free market think tank event), borrowing techniques out of this administration’s rhetorical karate handbook (for one, spinning it as a partisan issue; if you don’t support the repeal of NN, you’re some kind of shitty liberal, or a RINO), and making a false equivalency between ISPs (service providers) and Twitter (a content provider). What the FCC needs to do is set up some web pages to address the public’s main concerns, show some regard for the comments posted in the comment period (separating out the mindless bots; and considering he’s head of a communication agency, ask what can be done about bots interfering with public comment forums), **along with displaying pledges from all the major ISPs that they aren’t going to act maliciously with their new-found powers (see Comcast pledge above in post #215).** Pai has a branding problem with this, and all his Trump-ish bluster and sophomorism isn’t helping. Bolding added. I don’t think Pai’s leadership has been poor; I think he’s doing exactly what he was appointed to do. Kill net neutrality. I’m not sure what displaying pledges from the ISPs not to act maliciously will accomplish other than trying to deceive people, unless it’s legally binding. As noted in the post you referenced (?), #215, shown below, Comcast has already backed out of their pledge now that it is clear that net neutrality’s days are numbered and they’ll actually be able to act maliciously without any consequences. > [@Khendrask](#): > > Well, [Comcast has gone back on its promise to honor NN no matter what](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-deleted-net-neutrality-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/). > > Obviously we can expect things to go downhill from here. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/236 "2017-12-02T10:59:42Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I’m pretty sure that’s happened before. Surprisingly, big ISPs don’t want towns to offer cheap or free Internet service to its inhabitants. I think it was Wired magazine who compared the behavior of the telecoms to the utility monopolies of the early 20th Century, before FDR came along. I guess we’ll need another New Deal before we can see justice. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bruce\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/237 "2017-12-02T17:30:47Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Verizon has already demonstrated a 3-4 Gbps wireless connection. Netflix recommends 25 Mbs to stream 4k, which equates to roughly 120 simultaneous movies over that one wireless connection. I’m in total agreement with your sentiment. I can see first hand where the industry is moving. Copper is going away and it’s expensive to replace all that copper with fiber. The future of the internet will be high speed wireless service like the 5g and the technologies that come after it. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/238 "2017-12-02T21:23:17Z")
> [@Bruce\_Wayne](#): > > I’m in total agreement with your sentiment. I can see first hand where the industry is moving. Copper is going away and it’s expensive to replace all that copper with fiber. The future of the internet will be high speed wireless service like the 5g and the technologies that come after it. Despite what I said about how fiber is so much better (it is), this does make a kind of sense. Wireless companies could set up direct beaming, flat panel phased array antenna on existing cell towers and offer a credible alternative to the landline monopolists. The tech does have an upper limit but I see the sense in it. Even converting a monopoly to an oligopoly means meaningful price decreases : this is why, now that Sprint and T-mobile have ok-ish wireless networks (still not as good as AT&T/Verizon), wireless rates have come down a little bit. Free air optical, using IR lasers, of course is actually just as good as fiber optic, since it is the same thing. Unfortunately, it is direct LOS only. You could use it to interconnect your wireless repeater towers and have more, smaller repeater towers, closer to the customer’s residences. I know this is being experimented with : I assume all the serious systems, the customer’s main WLAN antenna is actually outside their house, aimed directly at the corresponding antenna tower belonging to the wireless company? This feels like it would be a ton more reliable than people just sort of sticking their receiver any old spot in their house, like we do with 4G. ---
**Author:** ![Settimo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Settimo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Settimo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370/239 "2017-12-02T22:33:45Z")
> [@AI\_Proofreader](#): > > I’m not sure what displaying pledges from the ISPs not to act maliciously will accomplish other than trying to deceive people, unless it’s legally binding. As noted in the post you referenced (?), #215, shown below, Comcast has already backed out of their pledge now that it is clear that net neutrality’s days are numbered and they’ll actually be able to act maliciously without any consequences. Pledges help, because they help set standards of conduct. If the company defaults on the pledge, consumers have a tangible claim against them. (Comcast didn’t rescind their pledge, they pared it down; but note I’m no great fan of Comcast, and that paring down is still skeezy.) It makes it more likely they’ll face consequences from their customers (as in customers leaving). Cable companies operate under the “old tech monopoly” model, which is basically push-till-it-hurts money-grabbing avarice coupled with a disregard for brand-building; when the cable company introduces a triple play package five years earlier, charging $100 for all three services (phone, voice, cable), then pulls a frog-in-the-pot on its customers and now charges $100 _just_ for cable TV, plus having strong-armed a requirement for set top boxes to decrypt the signal at $10 a pop, with no explanation why all this is really necessary, that cable company has displayed a kind of plain-faced greed and a total disregard for brand value. I think the “new tech monopoly” model is something like Google (I’m not spinning for Google, anyone can monopoly bash them all they want if that’s your thing), where they make at least a surface effort at showing goodwill to their customers, to help compensate for the public trust put into the enormous power they wield (“don’t be evil”). What, after all, prevents Google from hiding web pages they arbitrarily decide they don’t like on page twenty of related keyword search results? There’s such mistrust and animosity built up over the years toward cable providers that people _really_ don’t want these guys getting even more leverage, especially when they can do underhanded stuff like slowing down competing content providers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/net-neutrality-now-what/802370.md?page=11)