# Would a ruling against Net Neutrality NOT have foretold a world of multiple, parallel internets? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 8, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490 "2015-03-08T01:32:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/1 "2015-03-08T01:32:05Z")
Let’s say Tom Wheeler decides to vote against net neutrality and the FCC strikes it down. Is there any way in which, years down the line, we don’t live in a world where there isn’t one internet but several competing internets? Let me explain: A. You have option Comcast. Comcast has struck deals with certain content providers and excludes the use of their competing content providers. Thus, if you buy the “Comcast internet,” you get access to Netflix but not Hulu, you get access to Google but not Bing, you get access to New York Times Online but not Huffington Post, etc. B. You have option AT&T. At&T has struck deals with certain content providers and excludes the use of their competing content providers. Thus, with the “AT&T internet”, you get Hulu but no Netflix, Bing but no Google, etc. C. You have option Cox. Cox has struck deals with certain content providers and excludes the use of their competing content providers. On the “Cox internet” you get access to Yahoo but neither Google or Bing, you get access to Amazon Prime but neither Netflix or Hulu, etc. If there was no instutionalized net neutrality rules in place, what is to prevent this from occurring? Perhaps more importantly, how can anyone–knowing this fragmented eventuality is inevitable–not support net neutrality? If I, as a consumer, purchase internet access from an ISP, shouldn’t I have equal access to every website and content provider that is available? Anything less is tantamount to a censored, bought-and-paid-for commodity that undercuts the fundamental principle of the internet: access to the information hive-mind of humanity. ---
**Author:** ![rock\_party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@rock\_party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rock_party)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/2 "2015-03-08T01:50:03Z")
I could see it possible to have several subscriptions from competing ISP’s, but the customer would need several separate lines running to his house. I doubt the ISP’s and municipalities would allow that. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/3 "2015-03-08T02:24:57Z")
It might have gone that and cross ownership of content providers and service providers would likely have encouraged it, but I wouldn’t say it was inevitable. It’s possible that a market demand for an everything internet could have brought one or more service provider to not limit websites available. Regardless, we managed with cable and satellite companies not being legally required to be neutral. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/4 "2015-03-08T03:49:05Z")
Could it have resulted, not in fragmented services, but merely in hierarchies of service from each provider? Cox Super Premium, Cox Premium, Cox Silver, Cox Basic, for example? Say if you’re a gamer and want a hell of a lot of bandwidth, you’d pay extra for AT&T Game Class service, but those of us who just want to surf SDMB only need AT&T Foundation Class service. The Post Office does this, with Priority Mail, Media Mail, and so on. It seems to me that this relatively benign layering of services and pay-rates might have been the worst that would have come out. Some regulation would still have had to come in to play, to prevent conflict-of-interest situations. If an ISP were also a content provider, and worked to limit access to competitors’ products, that could be scary. (Wasn’t Amazon accused of this?) Net Neutrality is a good thing…but the reversal of it wouldn’t have to be catastrophically bad…would it? It wouldn’t have necessarily been the same industry-destroying doom that the FCC inflicted on Citizen’s Band radio…I think… ---
**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:** [March 9, 2015, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/5 "2015-03-09T13:12:38Z")
😕 **Trinipus** , ISPs already provide different levels of service, and that is not a violation of net neutrality. Back to the OP, there used to be that sort of parallel internet in the early days, with some content available only to AOL subscribers, some to Compuserve, some to Prodigy. Without net neutrality, I could see it going back to that, just like some cable channels are available through some providers and not others. It wouldn’t necessarily go that way – people who have a choice of more than one broadband provider would probably have broader access. Those who only have access to one provider might find themselves with no way to get to some websites. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/6 "2015-03-09T13:44:11Z")
I would think you’d get a few different flavors of “XX Speed, Unlimited Internet”. One that has full throttle access to all content, and others with specified content choked down to nearly unusable status. So, if you get the low cost version, you still have “unlimited” internet with XX maximum speed, but all movie streaming services and gaming services are nerfed. While it doesn’t sound all that bad, as a person who lost a full season of Yankess Baseball thanks to a provider dispute, I’d rather not have my ISP negotiating to determine whether or not my Netflix account is going to function properly this month. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/7 "2015-03-09T20:58:58Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > 😕 **Trinipus** , ISPs already provide different levels of service, and that is not a violation of net neutrality. That’s part of what I’m confused about. The people favoring Net Neutrality warned that, without it, ISPs could threaten customers by offering favorable levels of service to some customers, but not to others, thus interfering with free competition. But, as you say, they already can sell “prime service” to customers. What is the difference between this and what NN advocates were warning against? Specifically, if NN had not been upheld, what bad things might have resulted? “A world of multiple, parallel internets” doesn’t seem to be a likely consequence, but what would have been? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/8 "2015-03-09T21:25:56Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > If there was no instutionalized net neutrality rules in place, what is to prevent this from occurring?\*\* Perhaps more importantly, how can anyone–knowing this fragmented eventuality is inevitable–not support net neutrality?\*\* They are being paid not to care. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/9 "2015-03-09T21:56:35Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > But, as you say, they already can sell “prime service” to customers. What is the difference between this and what NN advocates were warning against? Go back to your post office example. Rather than different levels of service (which is fine), it’s charging more to some than others for the _same_ level of service. And don’t forget both sender and receiver get charged for ISP services. The receiver (end users) don’t necessarily get charged more but the senders may. For example, first rate mail from me to N. Etflix might cost me $1 to receive and N. Etflix $1 to send. Now, let’s say the postal service decides the Etflix family is getting an awful lot of business. They’d like a piece of that. The postal service happens to own “NBCast”, which is in a similar line of business as the Etflix family. But since they own “NBCast”, they only get charged $0.50 to send for exactly the same level of service. The postal system is also planning on upgrading their system to handle bigger mail volumes and deliver mail faster and more efficiently. So, they call up the Etflixes and tell them, “well, first rate mail prices are going to go up 50% just for you, but we’re going to keep them low for our subsidiary company and your competitor NBCast”. Ok, maybe they don’t do that. But then they say “Hey, Etflix, you’re doing an awful lot of business and putting a lot of wear and tear on our equipment. You’re paying the going rate, but we think you can do better. So, instead of using these new trucks we’ve rolled out that carry more volume and interface with your systems better, those trucks will go to everybody else and we’ll just use the old trucks just for you. That is, unless you pony up some money for our upgrades. We’re not going to ask our NBCast subsidiary to do so, but we’re asking everybody else to do so.” ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/10 "2015-03-09T22:09:59Z")
Should add: think of it more like a toll road. We might charge an 18-wheeler a higher toll than a passenger vehicle. And we accept this is a reasonable thing. But we don’t charge a Wal-Mart 18-wheeler more than a Target 18-wheeler. Or a Toyota 4-door sedan more than a Honda 4-door sedan. There’s not necessarily anything inherently wrong with doing so, but we also recognize that it’s probably a good thing for the overall economy that some basic infrastructure (which the internet is _de facto_ if not _de jure_) not to favor one business over another if they’re using the same amount of resources. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/11 "2015-03-10T01:09:34Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Should add: think of it more like a toll road. > > We might charge an 18-wheeler a higher toll than a passenger vehicle. And we accept this is a reasonable thing. > > But we don’t charge a Wal-Mart 18-wheeler more than a Target 18-wheeler. Or a Toyota 4-door sedan more than a Honda 4-door sedan. . . . Gotcha! And, yeah, I’m kinda not so much in favor of that! Thank you for explaining. (Sometimes, some of us need it dumbed down just a little!) ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/12 "2015-03-10T04:52:45Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Back to the OP, there used to be that sort of parallel internet in the early days, with some content available only to AOL subscribers, some to Compuserve, some to Prodigy. Without net neutrality, I could see it going back to that… But given that internet access providers abandoned that model – without net neutrality – why would they return to it? > [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > But then they say "Hey, Etflix, you’re doing an awful lot of business and putting a lot of wear and tear on our equipment. And this is what opponents focus on. One can view the net neutrality debate as boiling down to the question of which internet users have to fund the cost of infrastructure improvements for streaming services such as Netflix. Supporters of net neutrality in effect say that such costs must be borne by all internet users (whether they belong to a streaming service or not). Opponents are willing to permit a model where the costs are borne largely by Netflix (i.e., Netflix subscribers), by paying for something such as a “fast lane.” Think of it as tax vs. user fee. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/13 "2015-03-11T01:57:56Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > And this is what opponents focus on. One can view the net neutrality debate as boiling down to the question of which internet users have to fund the cost of infrastructure improvements for streaming services such as Netflix. Supporters of net neutrality in effect say that such costs must be borne by all internet users (whether they belong to a streaming service or not). Opponents are willing to permit a model where the costs are borne largely by Netflix (i.e., Netflix subscribers), by paying for something such as a “fast lane.” Think of it as tax vs. user fee. This is not unlike what occurred in the early days of the railroad. There was only so much infrastructure in place, and the railroads charged exorbitant fees such that only the largest enterprises could afford to meet. Thus, a lot of small players were effectively cut out of the picture, further enhancing the monopolistic power of the few major guys. The core principle of net neutrality is to promote competition by forcing the ISP’s to treat all content equally. “Fast lanes” will allow the large companies to squash the little ones by not even giving them the opportunity to fairly compete. In this regard, Netflix is not really the prime example of why net neutrality is important: it is already a huge powerhouse. They were complaining because they viewed the fast lanes as extortion, which is true and the other core criticism of not enacting net neutrality rules. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/14 "2015-03-11T17:52:14Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > This is not unlike what occurred in the early days of the railroad. > > There was only so much infrastructure in place, and the railroads charged exorbitant fees such that only the largest enterprises could afford to meet. Thus, a lot of small players were effectively cut out of the picture, further enhancing the monopolistic power of the few major guys. The result was that other people started to build more railways and brought the price down. * * * Quoted from [this article](http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/dear-foolish-and-gullible-americans-net-neutrality-is-not-your-friend/) > [@](#): > > This is the federal government we’re talking about. The FCC. The same agency that fined Viacom a million dollars for airing a movie preview for “Olympus is Fallen” that briefly featured something that sounds like an emergency alert signal (people might get confused and really think terrorists have taken over the White House and Morgan Freeman just became president!). And it’s the same agency that spent almost a decade litigating Janet Jackson’s nipple. And it’s the same agency, worst of all, that brought us the Fairness Doctrine, a regulation that sounds like something straight off the “Animal Farm.” > > If the FCC can impose rules based on what might occur, can’t we oppose those rules based on what will almost definitely occur and in fact has already occurred? A Fairness Doctrine for the Internet isn’t hard to conceive. Like the television and radio version, it will ensure that not only our “access” is fair and open, but that the content itself lives up to the federal government’s fairness and openness standards. I simply can’t imagine somthing like Hulu or Netflix getting started after the FCC starts “making the net better”. Regulations almost always help the incumbent. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/15 "2015-03-11T18:27:52Z")
Except the “fairness doctrine” that has your source in such a tizzy [was repealed in 1987](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine). So what’s the purpose of bringing it up? Yes, we could _imagine_ a “fairness doctrine for the internet”. I can imagine a lot of things. Net Neutrality is not the “fairness doctrine for the internet”. Conservative talking heads love to bring up the fairness doctrine, as if the liberals are juuuuust about to reinstate it, all so they can finally muzzle Rush Limbaugh style talk radio. It’s bullshit of course, and anyone who in 2015 mentions the “Fairness Doctrine” is a con artist who might as well have a Nigerian email address. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/16 "2015-03-11T18:36:33Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Gotcha! And, yeah, I’m kinda not so much in favor of that! Thank you for explaining. (Sometimes, some of us need it dumbed down just a little!) Another way to look at it in the context of streaming video might be that AT&T works out a deal with Amazon Prime Video for preferential treatment. So if you’re subscribed to AT&T, and watching Amazon Prime Video, you always get fast data rates, because they’re prioritizing those packets to go ahead of those from Hulu, Netflix, HBO Go, etc… Or maybe they don’t give them a higher priority, they just throttle the other providers at the source- so Amazon Prime gets more bandwidth than everyone else. Or for a more obnoxious example, the highly Republican management of some ISP could have conceivably started throttling primarily liberal websites’ bandwidth in favor of conservative alternatives. So Fox News is super-fast, and DailyKos is super-slow. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/17 "2015-03-11T18:41:57Z")
We had something like the OP’s proposal with telephone service long ago. Large cities had more than one telephone company, and their lines did not interconnect. I’ve heard of (rich) people who had more than one phone in their house, each connected to a different network. Obviously, this was not a good idea, and cooler heads prevailed (or Bell bought them all out), but we should learn from experience. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/18 "2015-03-11T19:08:57Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Except the “fairness doctrine” that has your source in such a tizzy [was repealed in 1987](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine). > > So what’s the purpose of bringing it up? Yes, we could _imagine_ a “fairness doctrine for the internet”. I can imagine a lot of things. Net Neutrality is not the “fairness doctrine for the internet”. > > Conservative talking heads love to bring up the fairness doctrine, as if the liberals are juuuuust about to reinstate it, all so they can finally muzzle Rush Limbaugh style talk radio. It’s bullshit of course, and anyone who in 2015 mentions the “Fairness Doctrine” is a con artist who might as well have a Nigerian email address. Well, the language wasn’t actually expunged from the rules until 2011. I agree with the gist that it solves a problems that doesn’t exist. Also, and it’s MY main point, regulation tends to help the incumbent. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/19 "2015-03-11T19:41:16Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Except the “fairness doctrine” that has your source in such a tizzy [was repealed in 1987](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine). > > So what’s the purpose of bringing it up? Yes, we could _imagine_ a “fairness doctrine for the internet”. I can imagine a lot of things. Net Neutrality is not the “fairness doctrine for the internet”. > > Conservative talking heads love to bring up the fairness doctrine, as if the liberals are juuuuust about to reinstate it, all so they can finally muzzle Rush Limbaugh style talk radio. It’s bullshit of course, and anyone who in 2015 mentions the “Fairness Doctrine” is a con artist who might as well have a Nigerian email address. To take bump’s example, no ISP is proposing to limit speeds on political grounds, either. Almost the entire body of arguments in favor of net neutrality focuses on as-yet hypothetical abuses that might occur, so it’s to be expected that opponents will do the same as well. ---
**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:** [March 11, 2015, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490/20 "2015-03-11T19:58:26Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > To take bump’s example, no ISP is proposing to limit speeds on political grounds, either. Almost the entire body of arguments in favor of net neutrality focuses on as-yet hypothetical abuses that might occur, so it’s to be expected that opponents will do the same as well. I think there’s some pretty convincing evidence that Verizon (or Comcast?) was already doing this to Netflix, so I don’t think it’s hypothetical. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-ruling-against-net-neutrality-not-have-foretold-a-world-of-multiple-parallel-internets/714490.md?page=2)