Originally Posted by michaeltscott
No, it isn't. Forcing the ISPs to increase their port capacity to accommodate whatever download demand their customers choose to place on it is not the point. Also, you definitely can't force networks passed through by Netflix's traffic to provide any particularly amount of bandwidth to traffic that's not even headed to their customers. Most claimed not to have been throttling Netflix traffic and in cases Netflix supported those claims.
What Netflix needs to make their business work is exactly what they're paying the ISPs for: private lanes which go into private ports so that their traffic is never in contention for transit to or entrance into ISP networks. Any FCC regulation which tries to force ISPs to accommodate that sort of custom arrangement without being paid is doomed to be blown away when its legality is challenged.
Right now the public hasn't been told what the "Net Neutrality" regulations say and its almost certain that they're written poorly in terms which can be construed in too many ways. As you say it will certainly be challenged and probably rewritten multiple times before they come up with a document which is at all meaningful and enforceable, but it probably won't change Netflix's arrangements or what they pay for them because what Netflix needs and is getting from the ISPs for their money is special treatment which they should have to pay for.
This is about transparency, not just about who pays what. The DC ruling provided an option for the FCC to re-classify ISP's as telecoms. This means that they fall under the same form of legal principals as utility companies, (I happen to work in the utility business as an energy consultant) and can continue to operate as monopolies as long as they continue to invest in their infrastructure and meet consumer demand. How they meet that demand, which includes cost increases, is dependent on specific guide lines that have been approved by a regulatory agency (ie: public utilities board). When an ISP charges Netflix a fee, whether it's defined as paid priority or not, under the new ruling, it has to be scrutinized by the FCC and can not be taxed on as a hidden cost, which eventually comes back to the consumer through Netflix. If they can not tax on that hidden fee, then we will know exactly what broad band service actually costs. The reason why broadband is so much cheaper in other developed countries, is that there is more competitive pricing, and IMO, the reason why there is more competitive pricing, is because these type of regulatory principles exist .
Originally Posted by Keenan
Yes, but they're two of the Big 3 along with Verizon, who has already tried this before and lost(given what their earlier win has brought about today), and while certainly possible I just don't see the smaller ISPs getting into a fight with the FCC. I also read that this time around the FCC took particular care to make sure that their proposed rulings/regulations were on very solid ground and would be tough to overturn. I guess we'll see, though I'll bet we don't see any pushback from the ISPs, at least not in the manner of getting the rules changed, business is far too good to have to explain to their shareholders why they want to poke the bear again. They'll do a lot of sabre-rattling of course, but nothing that would actually force a change to the rules.
That sabre-rattling may or may not be a lost cause, but they will probably appeal, which means delays in applying the rules, as it gets tied up in the courts.