I'm not sure it'd look exactly like this; I think they'll be more subtle about it. They know that with the bru-ha-ha created by the FCC's decision, they'll need to act slowly. There is also 0 doubt that lawsuits will be filed against the FCC the second the vote happens, and they have to be at least a little careful that they don't create pressure in Congress to do something. They also don't want this to be a campaign issue in the midterms. We might see some relatively invisible things, throttling BitTorrent for example. And possibly taking steps to harm Tor, or any other protocol, service, or site that they can pass off as shady. But even then, they run a different kind of risk: if they start being too aggressive about policing the Internet, they have to start worrying about being blamed for the stuff they don't cover. My guess is that rather than outright bundling sites together and making them inaccessible, they'll couch it in opposite terms: buy this plan to get faster service on these sites. They can deny that they're slowing down traffic, even when they do, while then saying they're offering people a "choice." I also think most of the pressure and cost will be for sites and businesses that depend on the internet, since it's harder to get people riled up about that. "So Google has to pay extra because they use so much? That seems fair." And Google will do it, because what's the alternative? But once they do, and consumers don't see a difference, suddenly it's much harder to criticize.
Why the scare quotes? How do you envision the experience of paying more to get a faster connection or faster filesharing to be different from paying more for a large coffee, organic peanut butter, additional cell phone minutes, or more legroom? Providers already offer a variety of speeds at a variety of prices. If some customers don't care about BitTorrent or Tor and can get a discount for giving it up, why not welcome that choice?saying they're offering people a "choice."
A lot of it is context. Starbucks didn't spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress to be able to sell tea that was really water, then offer an "upgrade" to actual tea. What the ISPs have done is to push to be allowed to give less service for the same money we're currently paying, then give us the "choice" to upgrade. If some customers don't care about having access to publications with a certain political slant and can get a discount for giving it up, why not welcome that choice?If some customers don't care about BitTorrent or Tor and can get a discount for giving it up, why not welcome that choice?
It's your analogies that seem like weak tea to me. Most any business can offer any quality of service they choose, at whatever price they want, whether or not they participate in the lobbying game. Why don't we expect ISPs to compete on price and service like every other sector? Perhaps you can correct me, but I'm not aware of any price controls for home internet service, where most people would use BitTorrent or Tor. I should say, where most people wouldn't use BitTorrent or Tor; do even five percent of home users know what those services are? Your worst-case-scenario sounds like something a lot of customers would appreciate: being able to save money by forgoing services they don't want.
Here's another. 10.6 million homes have no wired access to 25Mbps, 4.9 million can't get 3Mbps.50 million US homes have only one 25Mbps Internet provider or none at all.
The claim is "You either have Comcast, or you don't have internet." This implies the presence of a person. Uninhabited areas don't need competing ISPs, so coverage gaps in a map are not necessarily a concern. The great majority of California is "unserved" by wired internet according to the map, as if it were Antarctica; this is obviously misleading. If you include wireless, even with a minimum of four providers most populated areas appear to be covered. If you don't include wireless, we need a standard for what "having internet" means.
Now it's your turn to provide a source. This map, from the FCC's 2016 broadband report (which, I note, is no longer being updated due to issues with "funding"), shows no 25Mb/sec access in large chunks of the country (including California), with many more showing only one. You vastly overestimate the degree of broadband access in the U.S.The great majority of California is "unserved" by wired internet according to the map, as if it were Antarctica; this is obviously misleading.
I agree that comparatively few customers have access to 25 mbps broadband, as the map on your link shows. If, instead, the map showed that most people can get 25 mbps, but few can get 100 mbps, would you continue to claim that Americans have insufficient access to broadband? You can keep raising the number until you reach a point where most people can't get that number. Why is 25 mbps the target? 25 mbps is fast enough for five simultaneous high-definition Netflix streams. Is it some kind of market failure if a lot of people can't do that? How many people want to? How many are willing to pay for that level of service? Netflix is the runaway leader of streaming services, serving some 50 million U.S. households. 50% of households subscribe to any video-on-demand service. So half the country may not even be willing to pay for the 5 Mbps needed to stream HD, or 3 Mbps for SD video. I'll start with the "For more information" link from your source. As usual, to understand what's going on you have to dig into a long, tedious PDF. From page 6: So the FCC defines mom, dad, and the three kids each watching their own HD movie all at once as "advanced" broadband, that's fine. I think it is a lot more bandwidth than many households are willing to pay for. What's the outlook for a more basic broadband, say enough to watch just one or two movies at the same time, or perhaps just use Facebook and do some job-hunting? The latest Internet Access Service Report was published in April. (The FCC budget, by the way, was perfectly constant from 2014 to 2017, with some extra funds for moving headquarters added in 2016-17. It has been pretty nearly constant since 2009.) Page 6 has a chart like this one, from a 2016 article. The numbers in this year's report have improved. For 10 Mbps, enough to watch three simultaneous SD movies or two in high definition, 79% of developed census blocks have three or more ISPs to choose from. A census block is not the same as a household, but I haven't found more granular data. Another 18% have two providers, for a total of 97% of census blocks with choice in ISP. For those who are willing to give up high-definition, and are content to watch one movie at a time, or simply choose not to subscribe to video on demand, 90% have three or more providers, 10% have two. I think you may be overestimating the level of service many households are interested in paying for.Now it's your turn to provide a source.
In the 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Commission increased the speed benchmark for advanced telecommunications capability to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, up from the 4 Mbps/1 Mbps benchmark used in the previous three Reports. In setting the benchmark, the Commission took into account the needs of multiple users in the average household, as well as the speeds required to use high-quality video, data, voice, and other broadband applications.
I'm not, but that's basically my point. People will put financial concerns over what they have access to. I'll remind you of this conversation once a major ISP starts banning political speech it doesn't like.I think you may be overestimating the level of service many households are interested in paying for.
I agree, and am in favor. People should make their own decisions about how to spend their money. Making everyone pay for a standard level of service (or else go without any service) does not seem like the way to please as many people as possible. What's so bad about a world that includes the choice of cheap, basic internet service? I would like to express our disagreement in the form of a prediction, so we could give it some time and come back and see who was right. But I don't understand what your language of "banning political speech" even means.People will put financial concerns over what they have access to.
I'll remind you of this conversation once a major ISP starts banning political speech it doesn't like.
And what happens when Comcast decides that I can no longer exercise my choice to spend money on Netflix? Because that's not what the ISPs are interested in doing. As I said before, why on Earth would they lower prices just because? Say Congress discusses the possibility of overriding the FCC's decision. What's to stop Comcast or Verizon or Time Warner or whoever from simply disallowing any of their users from accessing sites that advocate for it? What's to stop them from disallowing their users to access the sites of the EFF, the ACLU, ProPublica, any newspaper they don't like?People should make their own decisions about how to spend their money.
What's so bad about a world that includes the choice of cheap, basic internet service?
But I don't understand what your language of "banning political speech" even means.