# Worst case scenario for no net neutrality? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 10, 2017, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901 "2017-07-10T05:56:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/41 "2017-07-11T14:18:33Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > This is probably the best example. Why didn’t a competitor run all new pipes to all the houses in Flint and have people switch water companies? Same for a new ISP. It’s all pipes. It’s not a big truck. ---
**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:** [July 11, 2017, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/42 "2017-07-11T14:38:51Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > ISPs are the substrate. > > Making a real, viable competitor to Compcast requires: > > - [140 Billion Dollars](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-it-would-cost-google-to-build-a-cable-network-2012-12?IR=T) > - The help of local governments to be allowed to use existing infrastructure and/or dig up/build your own > - An advertising budget > [@Slash1972](#): > > This is probably the best example. Why didn’t a competitor run all new pipes to all the houses in Flint and have people switch water companies? Same for a new ISP. It’s all pipes. Most areas already have competeing ISPs already. Coax vs twisted copper with satellite companies(such as Hughes net) when the other two suck. You also have data plans on your cellphone or tablet via cell tower coverage from a myriad of providers. ---
**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:** [July 11, 2017, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/43 "2017-07-11T14:54:26Z")
> [@Bruce\_Wayne](#): > > Most areas already have competeing ISPs already. Coax vs twisted copper with satellite companies(such as Hughes net) when the other two suck. You also have data plans on your cellphone or tablet via cell tower coverage from a myriad of providers. True! And don’t forget, there is always dial-up as well! ---
**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:** [July 11, 2017, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/44 "2017-07-11T14:55:27Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > It’s not a big truck. I don’t get this 😕 ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/45 "2017-07-11T14:58:47Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Is this how it is going to go? You will just switch to a new argument after your previous one has been shown to be wrong without any acknowledgement? If you’re talking about Google Fiber, it’s flailing because being a telecom and ISP is more challenging and less lucrative than most people understand. Cite: [Google Fiber division cuts staff by 9%, “pauses” fiber plans in 11 cities](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/google-fiber-laying-off-9-of-staff-will-pause-plans-for-10-cities/) > [@](#): > > Google Fiber isn’t dead yet, but the company’s first attempt at providing fiber internet to the home has fallen flat. At its start, Fiber was lauded as one of the most exciting disruptions ever for the ISP market, but it has yet to deliver on its promise. > > In October, Google Fiber CEO Craig Barratt announced that he was stepping down, and that the program would be pausing operations in potential Fiber cities. This led to reports that the staff would be halved to offset poor subscriber numbers. Google Fiber was hyping an odd business model that could be described as “Get much higher bandwidth for a much higher cost!” It sounds great until subscribers realized how much they’d be paying for a product they couldn’t completely consume. If net neutrality ends, we’ll likely see the emergence of a new model: “Get net-neutral service for a higher cost!” The cost will be REALLY high, because guess what… neutrality doesn’t just affect residential service, it also affects backbones and business-to-business service. Of course the cost will be high, because that’s what happens when you kneecap competition. So, the end result of abolishing net neutrality: [ul] [li]Higher residential costs[/li][li]Emergence of partially neutral ISP’s[/li][li]Customer service nightmare of finger-pointing for slow internet speeds[/li][li]Customers wanting to make economically optimal choices now need to think about the fragmentation and architecture of the internet.[/li][/ul] No freaking thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/46 "2017-07-11T15:17:28Z")
> [@Bruce\_Wayne](#): > > Most areas already have competeing ISPs already. Coax vs twisted copper with satellite companies(such as Hughes net) when the other two suck. You also have data plans on your cellphone or tablet via cell tower coverage from a myriad of providers. I’m not too hip on the difference between copper and coaxial, but saying “just use Satellite/4G instead” is a bit like saying “Can’t use a car? Have you tried a horse and buggy?”. I suppose “real viable competitor” is fairly vague, but _seriously_ - have you ever tried playing video games over a cell tower? Can’t get a ping below 150, it’s _awful_. No, we’re talking about real alternatives to broadband internet. I’m not gonna say it’s impossible for cell towers or satellite to get there, but it would be nice if our options weren’t reduced to “hold out for major technological advances in a related field in order to get the same service”. And by the way, there’s no guarantee that _those_ new hypothetical ISPs would stand up for net neutrality either. That hypothetical Amazon ISP? What do you think the odds are it’s happy about people going to AliBaba or Ebay? There’s no real business incentive to stand up for net neutrality, other than that it’s the right thing to do - why be “good” when “the best” is cheaper, easier, and more abusive? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/47 "2017-07-11T15:51:09Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yeah! You know, like back when Google tried the same thing, had moderate successes in the places that are extremely condusive to a successful ISP business (i.e. not rural areas), and backed off because it was too expensive and they didn’t have access to the same advantages existing ISPs did. > > I think we had this discussion before. The idea that a tech company would just up and start an ISP is not plausible. That’s the whole reason why ISPs are different! The startup costs are immense, and you need need _need_ cooperation from the local government in order to make it happen. It’s less like “I’m going to make a competitor to Apple” and more like “I’m going to make a competitor to the London Sewer System”. > > Google couldn’t do it. It’s not plausible to believe that others could. What are you talking about? Google did do it. Your first paragraph says it all. Google had “moderate successes in the places that are extremely conducive to a successful ISP”. That’s all Amazon would need to do to make it more painful for an ISP to charge for Amazon than not. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Because making a competitor to youtube requires: > > - an ISP that will host me > - Coding expertise and time > - An advertising budget Are you kidding? Take Snapchat, as an example. They have spent 3-4 billion dollars to net a first quarter loss of 200 million. What you are missing in your list is hundreds of millions of users and the ability to weather a decade plus of losses until you get them. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Making a real, viable competitor to Compcast requires: > > - [140 Billion Dollars](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-it-would-cost-google-to-build-a-cable-network-2012-12?IR=T) > - The help of local governments to be allowed to use existing infrastructure and/or dig up/build your own > - An advertising budget > It’s the difference between building a competitor to the local swimming pool and building a competitor to the local plumbing, including entirely new pipes going under everyone’s house. And please note that the ISP playing ball is the condition for the competitor to youtube existing in the first place. These ISPs can, without net neutrality, effectively make it so that websites do not exist for the customers of that ISP. > > Again, we’ve been over this. Yeah and I don’t get why people claiming something that has actually happened is implausible. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Because if you don’t like the local swimming pool, you can go to the swimming pool across town. If you don’t like the local plumbing, well, ask the residents of Flint, Michigan how that turned out for them. I feel like a broken record here, but the majority of Americans have at least 2 broadband providers plus cellular and satellite ISP options. It’s simply not comparable to water supply. ---
**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:** [July 11, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/48 "2017-07-11T15:55:58Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I feel like a broken record here, but the majority of Americans have at least 2 broadband providers plus cellular and satellite ISP options. It’s simply not comparable to water supply. I have [this link](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170706/07200737728/50-million-us-homes-cant-get-25-mbps-more-than-one-isp.shtml) that says you are wrong. [QUOTE=from the study] More than 10.6 million US households have no access to wired Internet service with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, and an additional 46.1 million households live in areas with just one provider offering those speeds, a new analysis has found. That adds up to more than 56 million households lacking any high-speed broadband choice over wired connections. Even when counting access to fixed wireless connections, there are still nearly 50 million households with one 25Mbps provider or none at all [/QUOTE] Do you have any links in support of YOUR position on the availability of ISPs to a majority of Americans? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/49 "2017-07-11T16:03:20Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > First, you engaged in some form of fallacy. Listing other firms that haven’t been subject to regulations is not necessarily an argument that this firm shouldn’t be either. You said that ISPs having a high barrier to entry means they have to have some sort of regulation. The point of listing all these other duopolies is to point out that we don’t have any special regulations for any of these other industries, so why do we need it for ISPs? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/50 "2017-07-11T16:06:06Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I have [this link](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170706/07200737728/50-million-us-homes-cant-get-25-mbps-more-than-one-isp.shtml) that says you are wrong. If you read the study cited in your own link you will see that ~70% of households have 2 or more wired ISPs providing 10+ MBPS. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/51 "2017-07-11T16:08:33Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Second, it’s not right that you get to list a series of company names without describing why they are relevant to this conversation. However, I’ll try and address those as well. I assume you agree that ISPs have monopoly power, since you seem to imply that these tech companies have similar power. No, ISPs do not have monopoly power. Most markets have 2 broadband providers plus cellular and satellite providers. ---
**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:** [July 11, 2017, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/52 "2017-07-11T16:34:35Z")
> [@treis](#): > > If you read the study cited in your own link you will see that ~70% of households have 2 or more wired ISPs providing 10+ MBPS. Well, if that’s cool with you, then we are really only arguing over what should be considered “High Speed Internet” and competition of ISPs If your stance is “If there are at least 2 ISPs offering wired service at 10 MBPS, then I believe that there is enough competition to overcome any Net Neutrality issues such as one ISP charging content providers to deliver content to end users” then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/53 "2017-07-11T16:45:19Z")
I don’t see a post net neutrality landscape being all that conceptually different than the cable TV landscape, except that most of the arm twisting will be behind the scenes - you’ll have the ISPs shaking down other content providers and ecommerce sites for preferential treatment/higher bandwidth more than anything else. There will probably be a baseline priority level, and enhanced levels above, which can be paid for. I have a feeling that shaking the end consumer down wouldn’t be as effective as doing it behind the scenes. In any competitive situation, the consumers will jump ship as soon as possible if they’re on the receiving end. Better to make that invisible to the end user as much as possible. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/54 "2017-07-11T17:13:29Z")
> [@treis](#): > > No, ISPs do not have monopoly power. Most markets have 2 broadband providers plus cellular and satellite providers. ISPs do have monopoly power in places where there is only one provider, almost 1/3 of Americans. Cellular and satellite are not equivalent. Satellite is really, really not equivalent – you’re on dial-up for the uplink and it takes, what, almost half a second for the downlink? These companies do have regulatory burdens: broadcasters, electric companies, gas companies, phone companies, water companies. I just thought I’d list a few companies and industries that do have regulatory burdens so you can address them. I figure I don’t need to make an argument about how they are similar since you didn’t. You’re not making arguments, you’re making statements and listing companies. Did you address my points about each of the companies you mentioned? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/55 "2017-07-11T17:32:17Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What are you talking about? Google did do it. Your first paragraph says it all. Google had “moderate successes in the places that are extremely conducive to a successful ISP”. That’s all Amazon would need to do to make it more painful for an ISP to charge for Amazon than not. Google is bigger than Amazon, and has a strong ideological attraction to the concept of fiber. Also, Amazon might be able to take a bite out of Comcast, but would it be worth it for Amazon? Probably not. Google made inroads where the government went along with it, and in areas that are easy for ISPs to handle. This is not an option everywhere. ISPs are _not_ subject to the same competition pressures as average corporations are. That’s why regulations like net neutrality are so important. Saying Google “did it” is just wrong. If the goal was to honestly compete in the same field as Comcast, they didn’t. Additionally, I feel like you’re missing the point somewhat - sure, Amazon _could_, in theory, do this and take a chunk out of Comcast’s budget, suffering heavy losses in the process and none of this makes any sense but I’ll just go with it for a minute. So what if Comcast decides to instead go after people who definitely _couldn’t_ do that? I guess they’re just shit outta luck, huh? Huge multinational corporate web services like Amazon that _could_ fight back against this are edge cases. > [@](#): > > Are you kidding? Take Snapchat, as an example. They have spent 3-4 billion dollars to net a first quarter loss of 200 million. What you are missing in your list is hundreds of millions of users and the ability to weather a decade plus of losses until you get them. Is Snapchat a typical web startup? I’m honestly asking, because I don’t know. My experience is in Forums, which typically grow gradually, being slightly profitable pretty much the whole time once they hit a certain fairly low point. > [@](#): > > I feel like a broken record here, but the majority of Americans have at least 2 broadband providers plus cellular and satellite ISP options. It’s simply not comparable to water supply. Strike cell and satellite options. They are not good enough. They might be later, but if your hope to break a cartel/monopoly is “wait for a significant technological advancement”, then I’m gonna have to cry foul. As for actual broadband internet, if you restrict it to what was the standard three years ago and don’t go beyond that to include the notably inferior satellite internet, [the actual number is something like 20%](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/). ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/56 "2017-07-11T17:38:38Z")
> [@treis](#): > > You said that ISPs having a high barrier to entry means they have to have some sort of regulation. The point of listing all these other duopolies is to point out that we don’t have any special regulations for any of these other industries, so why do we need it for ISPs? Which do you think is more closely analogous to an ISP out of each of the following examples: - London City Plumbing - Apple - Stadtwerke München (munich power company) - Youtube - Ma Bell - Intel Please note that the latter were from your examples, and the former are heavily regulated utilities and/or actual elements of the state. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/57 "2017-07-11T19:51:56Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Google is bigger than Amazon, and has a strong ideological attraction to the concept of fiber. Also, Amazon might be able to take a bite out of Comcast, but would it be worth it for Amazon? Probably not. It becomes worth it if Comcast starts charging their users to access Amazon. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Additionally, I feel like you’re missing the point somewhat - sure, Amazon _could_, in theory, do this and take a chunk out of Comcast’s budget, suffering heavy losses in the process and none of this makes any sense but I’ll just go with it for a minute. So what if Comcast decides to instead go after people who definitely _couldn’t_ do that? I guess they’re just shit outta luck, huh? Huge multinational corporate web services like Amazon that _could_ fight back against this are edge cases. Those people would use Amazon Webservice (or one of their competitors) as their hosts. Since AWS makes several billion dollars a year in profit they aren’t going to cotton to ISPs throttling their traffic. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Is Snapchat a typical web startup? I’m honestly asking, because I don’t know. My experience is in Forums, which typically grow gradually, being slightly profitable pretty much the whole time once they hit a certain fairly low point. It’s typical of a start up that seeks to challenge, for example, Google or Facebook in online advertisements. > [@Budget Player Cadet](#): > > - London City Plumbing > > - Apple > > - Stadtwerke München (munich power company) > > - Youtube > > - Ma Bell > > - Intel > > Please note that the latter were from your examples, and the former are heavily regulated utilities and/or actual elements of the state. None of them really. All of the above have an order of magnitude higher barrier to entry than ISPs. ---
**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:** [July 11, 2017, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/58 "2017-07-11T19:57:51Z")
> [@treis](#): > > None of them really. All of the above have an order of magnitude higher barrier to entry than ISPs. I’ve already agreed to disagree on the ISP competition front, but come on. You seriously think that starting a web site where people upload videos has an order of magnitude higher barrier to entry than starting a new ISP? Really? ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/59 "2017-07-11T20:44:23Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What are you talking about? Google did do it. Your first paragraph says it all. Google had “moderate successes in the places that are extremely conducive to a successful ISP”. That’s all Amazon would need to do to make it more painful for an ISP to charge for Amazon than not. OK, let’s play along with this. Net neutrality is abolished. Amazon doesn’t like Comcast throttling traffic between AWS and subscribers, so it decides to become a residential ISP. But remember, AWS itself is also an internet subscriber. When AWS gets throttled communicating to its peers, how can Amazon respond? Do they create their own backbones? Do they create Amazon Telecommunications? Are you excited about the prospect of having to know which of your websites are on the Amazon Internet and which ones aren’t? Do you understand everything this entails? ---
**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:** [July 11, 2017, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901/60 "2017-07-11T21:03:35Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Google is bigger than Amazon, and has a strong ideological attraction to the concept of fiber. Also, Amazon might be able to take a bite out of Comcast, but would it be worth it for Amazon? Probably not. Google made inroads where the government went along with it, and in areas that are easy for ISPs to handle. This is not an option everywhere. ISPs are _not_ subject to the same competition pressures as average corporations are. That’s why regulations like net neutrality are so important. Saying Google “did it” is just wrong. If the goal was to honestly compete in the same field as Comcast, they didn’t. > > Additionally, I feel like you’re missing the point somewhat - sure, Amazon _could_, in theory, do this and take a chunk out of Comcast’s budget, suffering heavy losses in the process and none of this makes any sense but I’ll just go with it for a minute. So what if Comcast decides to instead go after people who definitely _couldn’t_ do that? I guess they’re just shit outta luck, huh? Huge multinational corporate web services like Amazon that _could_ fight back against this are edge cases. > > Is Snapchat a typical web startup? I’m honestly asking, because I don’t know. My experience is in Forums, which typically grow gradually, being slightly profitable pretty much the whole time once they hit a certain fairly low point. > > Strike cell and satellite options. They are not good enough. They might be later, but if your hope to break a cartel/monopoly is “wait for a significant technological advancement”, then I’m gonna have to cry foul. As for actual broadband internet, if you restrict it to what was the standard three years ago and don’t go beyond that to include the notably inferior satellite internet, [the actual number is something like 20%](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/). > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > OK, let’s play along with this. Net neutrality is abolished. Amazon doesn’t like Comcast throttling traffic between AWS and subscribers, so it decides to become a residential ISP. > > But remember, AWS itself is also an internet subscriber. When AWS gets throttled communicating to its peers, how can Amazon respond? Do they create their own backbones? Do they create Amazon Telecommunications? Are you excited about the prospect of having to know which of your websites are on the Amazon Internet and which ones aren’t? Do you understand everything this entails? The part that I am not understanding it the acceptance that comcast may throttle amazon in the first place, even if there is effective way to be competitive in the ISP market. (Which there is not.) Okay, so amazon comes out with amazon ISP, and we’ll say that they manage to roll it out to every household in the US. That’s great, now I can order stuff off of amazon. Hmmm, but wait, there may be something on etsy that I want, or ebay. There may be something that I want to buy from petsmart or walmart .coms. So, I guess that ebay and etsy need to form their own ISPs as well, and I will need to subscribe to them, as well as for any other store that I buy from online. Now, Amazon has a few videos to watch, but netflix has a much better selection, so I will need to subscribe to netflix ISP. Now, after all that, I am going to have to keep my original ISP, because they are the ones that are carrying cbs and abc, assuming that they don’t actually end up running their own ISPs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-case-scenario-for-no-net-neutrality/790901.md?page=4)