"If a ISP's customer wants to spend 100% of their bandwidth talking to netflix (or anybody else), that's their business. Netflix is sending that data only because the ISP's customer's asked for it."

I'm not sure you can rebut (parents) hypothetical with an appeal to free markets ... since it is free markets in telecom service that net neutrality subverts for (what is, in my opinion) the greater good.

"An ISP isn't a shared commons. It's offering a service to transit data to/from other hosts on the internet, usually metered at either a fixed rate per unit time, or by the total carriage "weight" (bandwidth)."

Are you drawing a distinction between transit ISPs (like he.net, etc.) and last-mile providers (like Comcast) ? Because I thought the entire point of net neutrality was that an ISP was indeed, to some degree, a shared commons.

> appeal to free markets

This isn't about markets (free or regulated). The entire point[1] of an ISP is to (for a fee) carriage IP packets. Just like UPS/FedEx (for a fee) carriage you physical packages. I'm appealing to the simple idea that both of those businesses have an obligation to fulfill the service the customer paid for.

If ISPs costs are too high, they should e.g. raise their {monthy flat rate,per-bit bandwidth fee} or any claim that they provide access to the internet as an internet service provider is fraud.

> ISP was indeed, to some degree, a shared commons.

The internet is a shared commons. The actual carriage of packets from your house to the internet is usually some kind of leased flat rate or pay-per-use service. You are not sharing your ADSL line or contractually guaranteed portion of your local cable line's bandwidth.

[1] obviously they also handle associated technical minutia like assigning IP addresses

They asked for it but they didn't pay for it.

The customer paid the ISP for bandwidth and Netflix pays AWS for outbound bandwidth. Both parties are paying providers for the requested capacity. ISPs in other countries can provide service at lower prices that US ISPs so I find it hard to believe this is a cost of service argument. The truth is that cable TV is being displaced by network delivered video and the ISPs know they can’t easily replace the cable revenue b6 jacking up internet access fees. Repealing net neutrality provides cover to shift revenue from cable to internet.

If Netflix were paying AWS's rates for outbound bandwidth they'd be even less profitable than they are.

If the ISP wants to be involved in monitoring and regulating (or charging differently depending) where your packets go, then they can be liable for providing child pornography, being a party to all copyright infringements, etc... If they want to take action depending on the data, then they can be held liable for the data as well. This is why the telcos wanted "common carrier" status in the first place.

But now they're too greedy having seen the cable TV model where they get to charge rent on both ends for content they didn't even create.

Aren’t they already? I thought they are the ones sending warnings about piracy etc.

Also, its not like youtube, fb etc. Create their own content

No, they’re not.

Regarding ISPs creating original content, they have tried that and the quality of their stuff just couldn’t stand next to Google, Facebook, etc.

I think we all know a relative who used the “install CD” that came with their 2000s-era ISP and ended up with a junk homepage & browser toolbars, and “ask Jeeves” as their default search engine.

are you implying that google or facebook create original content?

I’m implying that the quality of their apps/services makes them worth visiting on the web.

Yes, I think we all know what the idea behind repealing NN is. Most here think it's a bad idea.

> In that case the ISP isn't violating the contract and the customer wanting to spend %100 of their bandwidth talking to netflix for instance is the ISP's business too

That's garbage. I don't need my ISP shaking down the content business to be able to put their own content up front while requiring payment from others for equal level treatment.

Taxpayers built this infrastructure and there are still regional broadband monopolies all over the place. It's entirely anti-consumer. We built the damned thing in the first place with the agreement there would be sufficient service. Fact is, our service is lousy, even in many dense urban areas!

We should stand up together and vote this anti-NN crap down, regardless of whether it takes 2 weeks or 2 years.

>Taxpayers built this infrastructure and there are still regional broadband monopolies all over the place.

Taxpayers building modern ISP infrastructure is a myth. Very little public money went to last mile ISPs. In fact, they are typically taxed fairly highly by local governments. Governments see ISPs are a money raising source not a place to spend money .

There are still regional "telecom" companies like AT&T and Verizon, but they don't have monopolies over ISP service. In most areas its actually the cable company that has more customers.

> Taxpayers building modern ISP infrastructure is a myth.

The deregulatory 1996 Telecom Act included provisions for a particular level of broadband penetration and performance. Those provisions were not met. Instead, now we have an FCC trying to reclassify broadband to 10 Mbps.

Look at the distribution of throughput speeds in the green image posted here [1]. ISPs haven't fulfill their end of the deal with regards to speeds, and the country is mostly covered by regional broadband monopolies.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/5/15191048/fcc-chairman-ajit...

> "Taxpayers built this infrastructure"

ARPANET became obsolete and made redundant by private backbone providers, and so was decommissioned in 1990.

Taxpayers have done more than ARPANET.

This is about the 1996 Telecom Act, and how the public has allowed private companies to acquire regional monopolies while using public resources.