neuterlize

> Auction-based prioritization of bandwidth.

That's a really, really contrived example.

Firstly, it assumes that bandwidth is scarce, which it isn't in the access network.

Secondly, the incentives don't align. Everybody would bid maximum bid during prime time and zero at all other times, which is the same as not running an auction at all.

You either have the bandwidth to serve your customers during prime time or you don't. There is no middle ground.

Any other examples you'd like to try?

> If Netflix wants to pay extra so they stream video in real time that makes sense.

No, it does not make sense. It's not Netflix that wants to stream video in real time. It's the broadband subscriber that sends a request to Netflix and asks for a stream to be delivered to them.

The subscriber already pays for the broadband and the ability to stream. It is not reasonable to ask them to pay more. Also, in this day and age, in no way, shape or form is it acceptable for an Internet connection classified as broadband not to be able to stream video.

> Notably, this is more or less how the internet already works.

No, it's really not.

> Content Distribution Networks pay for access to ISP local networks, which gives them a fast lane to customers.

This is incorrect. CDNs may pay ISPs to colocate on-net on their networks, or they may not. CDNs may just as well colocate for free or not colocate at all. An ISP may peer with a CDN or get access to a CDN via an IX.

Nothing says the CDN has to pay. In fact, the ISP might even pay the CDN for a node. Or the ISP may even not qualify for a CDN node.

CDNs have nothing to do with fast lanes. CDNs work because of physical proximity.

> It's how virtually all content is already distributed.

A lot of content is delivered via CDNs, but not necessarily on-net.

> doesn't allow any paid prioritization, even if such prioritization isn't anti-competitive.

Please give an example of paid prioritization that isn't anti-competitive.

Upgrading your infrastructure to meet the demand your customers place on it isn't a cost of regulatory compliance. It's the cost of doing business.

Where in the network neutrality order did the FCC impose censorship on the Internet?

With what money and what political capital?

Yes, we had NN before 2015. It was the default state and how the Internet was originally built.

We used to have competition for Internet services (dialup and DSL), now we don't (most people access the Internet through cable which is a monopoly).

The reason why we are losing NN now is because it's become feasible from a technical and business perspective to violate NN.

Pai's arguments are pure unadulterated bullshit. Abolishing NN will not increase investments or create competition. CEOs are on record that NN will not impact business or investments.

> If we want something for the public good, it should be publically funded.

That's just a silly argument.

If we are going there, let's first have the ISPs vacate all public rights of way and return all government subsidies.

> The planned order hasn't even been released!

Be that time it'll probably be too late.

> On the one hand, I can see why monopolistic powers in the hands of ISPs would be bad, but I like that the order would restore "police" powers to the FTC instead of the FCC,

The FTC is not the correct body to "police" broadband.

> and I can't blame ISPs for wanting a piece of the $ pie.

I can. They are already getting paid. They should not be able to go back for seconds.

> And it's not like the internet was a horrible wasteland until 2015.

That's because network neutrality was the default state before. It's only now that is becoming feasible both from a technical and business perspective to violate network neutrality.

> But then again, Pai plan proponents keep saying this will spawn more innovation and improve utilities. That sounds pretty dubious and I haven't seen much proof. I don't recall any big innovation suddenly being stifled in 2015

Yeah, that's just a load of bullshit. CEOs have gone on record that NN will not affect business or investments.

> In my perfect world, the regulatory power would go back to the FTC but it would at the same time release a plan for opening up internet utility access so small players can compete with the big ones.

Too bad we already had that, minus the FTC part. Fat chance of getting it back.

Your arguments don't make much sense.

Network neutrality is not Ma Bell style regulation. NN will not freeze things. Don't know which oligarchs you are referring to, but any NN laws are unlikely to stop them 'garching.

Killing NN is unlikely to kill all the small players. In fact they might rather thrive by using NN as a competitive tool.