They throttled Netflix not because they're evil, indeed, but because being in a monopolistic situation, they had no incentive to upgrade their network.
If this situation doesn't change, without NN, they will charge Netflix extra or start throttling again. Since they have no competition to be concerned with, they will have no incentive to lower their fees, to upgrade their network nor to improve their internal processes and become more efficient. Why would they do that?
Because they are nice? Don't be naive!

Only competition will lower our fees and insure the quality we expect. Obviously, no regulation will ever be able to "compete with competition" and compensate enough the lack of it.

Moreover, more competition means the traffic will be split over multiple networks, therefore less congestion for consumers. More competition is in fact better than those required network upgrades you considered too expensive to be carried out by a single, lazy and arrogant, monopolistic ISP.

I would rather see Netflix absorbing a part of these extra costs, since there is much stronger competition on the content provider side.
Logically this can impact the content quality Netflix is able to provide today, less movies from third parties and less Netflix originals.

Overall, without competition among ISPs, consumers are losing with or without NN, so please don't avoid this side of the equation in your otherwise thorough justifications.

I don't disagree with you. It's important to look at both sides of the situation and the side effects of it. I don't like the ISPs either and on a side note, I'm glad the merger between Sprint and T-Mobile failed. Competition is healthy for the industry and it only benefits the consumers.

In the case of NN, there are no good sides. Both sides are sleazy and both sides are not friendly to the consumer. Both Google and NetFlix painted themselves as the victims, but they completely misrepresented their situation. They used their powerful PR arm (And Google with their massive network) to spread false information. They turned it into ideological battle and painted it as a Trump vs Obama situation and ensnared unwitting supporters into the fold. It's dirty and untruthful. It was a great propaganda campaign (on both sides), I give them that much.

NetFlix only seem less evil because they entertain us, but they're just like the ISPs. A monopoly who answer to their shareholders and only care about raising rates to meet their bottom line. They will be less effective at producing new shows like you said, but society as a whole needs to be binging less anyway.

Quote from: Minsc on December 18, 2017, 14:01

NetFlix only seem less evil because they entertain us, but they're just like the ISPs. A monopoly who answer to their shareholders and only care about raising rates to meet their bottom line. They will be less effective at producing new shows like you said, but society as a whole needs to be binging less anyway.

Except that Netflix is NOT a monopoly, while ISPs are, for 46% of Americans.

Netflix has a plethora of competitors, from Amazon, to Hulu and HBO to online rental services like Vudu, Fandango, Google, Amazon, iTunes or On Demand and pre-recorded shows from streaming TV  providers like PlayStation Vue and many other smaller specialised streaming services (Acorn, IndieFlix, Tubi, etc)

Big, big difference!

Agreed, on the content side there are at least a dozen I can think of ... on the ISP side most locations are lucky to have 3

Although, if you want to be picky, if you want to watch Game of Thrones (HBO), Breaking Bad (Netflix) or Seinfeld (Hulu) there aren't really any competitors, as each company mostly has exclusive content.

I see them more as complementing each other rather than competing.

If I want Jessica Jones and Narcos I can't just look for the cheapest alternative. Netflix is the only choice. And if I want Game of Thrones, HBO is the only choice.

You are peaky, indeed! 
If you have a normal lifestyle, you probably need a full month to binge watch GoT, most likely more.
You can put your Netflix or Hulu on hold for a month and subscribe to HBO until you are done. Same goes for Seinfeld or Breaking Bad.
Therefore the 3 service providers are actually competing for your monthly subscription.
Not to mention that you can also rent Seinfeld or BB from the above mentioned On Demand streaming services (or even buy them).
You do have choices.

You can not do that with your ISPs since 46% of Americans have no other choice but to accept what their ISP monopoly is forcing them to accept.

Although, if you want to be picky, if you want to watch Game of Thrones (HBO), Breaking Bad (Netflix) or Seinfeld (Hulu) there aren't really any competitors, as each company mostly has exclusive content.

I see them more as complementing each other rather than competing.

If I want Jessica Jones and Narcos I can't just look for the cheapest alternative. Netflix is the only choice. And if I want Game of Thrones, HBO is the only choice.

Meh, if it's not on Amazon we just don't watch it or rent ... We pay for prime. There's no reason to worry about which specific show/movie we're wasting time with ... there are tons of content providers and tons of content. We could almost just watch YouTube.

Come on back when you have no internet service and we will chat again. My speed is the same now as it was in 2010 so Net Neutrality did nothing for me!

You dont know, because had NN not been in place you might have felt the pain 2 years ago. You dont know what NN has prevented from happening, but you will know in 2018.

Things are not as black and white as you think.
For the record, I'm registered independent and I voted democrats in the past elections.
Yet I see no problem in abolishing NN as long as it is done when competition is strong enough to protect consumers. And I want to see even more regulations abolished to reach that level of competition.

I think things are as black and white as I think.
The new regulations do nothing to improve competition (just the opposite).
The new regulations do nothing for low income families. The digital divide will get bigger.

Where's the grey area?

Quote from: RAW on December 19, 2017, 19:33

Where's the grey area?

In your assumption that those who see no problem in eliminating NN are republicans.
Not so black and white.

I have never assumed that.
. . . so no grey areas.