The logic isn't tortured, the facts are just confusing. Utilities form natural monopolies, while demand is inelastic. Left to their own devices, rates would skyrocket, nothing whatsoever to do with supply and demand. Think of Enron's manipulation of the California energy market. Where you can't have effective competition, you have to have regulation, unless you see no need to protect consumer interest. Government's position varies from time to time...sometimes favoring regulation, sometimes trying to promote competition (by initiating anti-trust activity). But recently, there has been a certain affection for the (indefensible) position that you espouse: no regulation, and pretend that customers have free will to walk away. As if you could buy electric power from Deutche Energiegesellschaft if you don't like the price or service.

Pipelines, railroads, etc have published rate schedules, which are regulated by the ICC. The example I gave hypothetically built on the example you gave to illustrate what net neutrality really means, it may or may not reflect reality in the pipeline business.

As for the politics, the present head of the FCC seems to confuse the carriers "using overwhelming force to dominate key players" with "fair competition". It's a blunt error. And "underserved areas" have absolutely nothing to do with what the provider does once the area is served. I'd also point out that the ONLY way remote areas will ever be served affordably is if regulation requires it. Underserved areas are underserved because it's not in the economic interest of any company, monopoly or not. Normally this would be beaten to death in the hearing process, but apparently, we don't do that stuff any more.

It's not that his is the only groundless position, though. The Electronic Frontier Foundation also confuses a lot of important points. They think that carriers will use differential pricing to somehow upset the "democracy" of the net. And they think this is a consumer issue. Neither is true. The carriers couldn't care less about 99% of the traffic on the web. What is upsetting to them is the challenge that IP delivery poses to their traditional bread n butter: Phone and CATV. If they simply take the plunge and offer competing IP services, their products would be undifferentiated. Worse is that the various last mile costs...911 service, public access, rights of way, etc...are recoverable with traditional services, but not with IP service. So if they compete toe to toe, price for penny, their physical networks go bust (not to mention the huge budget hits taken by the communities served.) It really comes down to which set of giant companies will come to dominate phone and video. Consumer issues? If you think that Netflix or Youtube service will be even one penny cheaper than traditional CATV, you have a rude surprise coming your way. If you think that Netflix or Youtube will be any "more democratic" than traditional CATV, you have a surprise coming. It's all corporate cr_p, so just come off the pedestal.

So there it is...I've disparaged every side, and left you wondering what to make of it all. It's simple: the consumers pay the last mile cost, no matter who owns the network. So let that be directly reflected in the monthly bill. If someone lives on a mountain top in Podunk, they're going to pay a fortune for the wire, settle for satellite service, or do without service entirely. And allow net neutrality, so that the regulator can step back and let the pigs fight fairly for the trough. Anything less means that someone has to be in there refereeing.

Repeatedly asserting something is a "natural monopoly" is not an argument. It is a assertion used by folks who wish to use the coercive power of government to defend a monopoly.

The assertion that a government granted monopoly saves money through reducing competition for infrastructure is (in my opinion) ludicrous. By that measure, telecoms should be granted exclusive regional coverage since multiple cellphone towers are wastefully duplicative.

Sure, they're duplicative, but who gets to determine whether it is wasteful?

I see no difference in arguing any point of infrastructure including roads, waste disposal, electric power, gas -- whatever. If private companies want to build competitive and duplicative systems, why not? It's their money, let them blow it.

From the net neutrality argument it seems to me that one's position (excluding political oneupmanship) comes down to who one trusts most to provide the best service. To me, it's not a morality play. Frankly, I cant see how either approach especially benefits or penalizes me.

So try one. Either one. If it fails, change the law and try the other. WTF?

Prominent people Opposing repeal sign detailed letter of opposition: Internet Leaders Call For FCC to Cancel Net Neutrality Vote | Fortune

Unfortunately prominent people dont count for much in a nation of ignorami who have no concept of anything outside besides unbridled capitalism.

- Peter.

I am waiting to see what happens to my streaming ROKU service brought through internet by the local cable provider who has made two dozen calls over the last year trying to get me to buy a cable package instead of just internet.

This is one of the things that no one appears to realize. My cable provider will now be in a position to recoup the loss of profit from selling me a cable package, by impacting the speed of my internet to slow down streaming, unless of course I pay for deluxe web services.

In the end, the people who lose will be the consumer.

I have not read the complete thread but ....
 

here is my two cents anyway.

Net Neutrality is nothing less than government takeover of the internet. This cannot go well as evidenced by everything else the .gov touches. Repeal will stimulate competition and the free market will sort out winners and losers.

Net Neutrality can only spawn another government agency and ultimately have us all paying for it in taxes as well as monthly charges for access.

I have no problem with the Telcos wanting to toll access to the internet.

So long as the subsidies they get from the government are removed.

This doesn't follow from the facts. Take a deep breath, think about what you're saying and try again.

The internet was not invented by private companies. It was always a government project, in co-operation between the Military and the Academy from inception thru it's present iteration.

No more private than the Interstate Highway system or the military.

- Peter.

So what pj. The internet was placed in the public domain somehow. I admittedly don't know how. Many government projects were so transitioned. Are you saying it is o.k. if the government now wants to take it back?

Government regulation of utilities such as electrical power and telephone is the model we can look forward to.

This is my professional domain, so here's my 2 cents.

Net neutrality has always been really a farce for a long time. The tier one carriers have always been doing "Quality of Service" ie prioritization of service over others for as long as time.

My bittorrent traffic on comcast was very much throttled and I could see it if I didn't encrypt the traffic.

The net neutrality rules were sort of a joke anyway. There wasn't a way for the FCC to enforce them. I'm sorry, but unless there's a "bite" involve. The FCC accused Verizon and Comcast of throttling, but never really did anything to make them change.

All of it was just feel good lip service, just like the dreamer rules. Unless it goes through the legislative process, there's a high chance it will die.

This will however greatly punch certain tech companies in the gut. The same companies that have been surprisingly anti-Trump. Google and Amazon stand to lose a lot of money. This rule removal was aimed squarely at them.

Secondly, the big tier service providers were pushing this secondarily for a business reason because several large corporations have been pushing their IT infrastructure and system workflows heavily into the cloud. Those same corporations will now have to pay a troll toll if they wish to have fast access to those cloud services.

Will this affect residential customers? Will we have the same nightmare scenario that Portugal has to deal with?

My honest answer is no. We won't see any significant difference to our internet speeds.

It is baked ,cut into slices and buttered on both sides ,the way forward of most commercialized products ,"your internet "which was described by the foreseers of the internet was envisioning something much better for this every day tool we now use in our everyday life .The governance of the internet is now totally up to corporate hands ,a billboard bonanza to satisfy streaming adds since its already filtered through the system continiously .I envision some political scape of add runs during re-election would be in store ,this was a most certain decisive push for the outcome .We all wanted this ,right?

No.

- Peter.

Aw hell no. Now youve gone to far.

Net neutrality's impact on free porn could be significant, experts say | Fox News

LOL. Might have to revert to the old fashoined ways?