Federal Regulator Expected To Hand Huge Win To Net Neutrality

[jonatha]

"Net Neutrality" is no more sensible claiming that all forms of postal mail should be "dumb" pipes of same time to delivery, prices, and volume.

Your analogy is flawed.

To correct it, you have to make the argument that once I've put my first-class stamp on an envelope the postal service should be allowed to decide to deliver it via carrier pigeon rather than aircraft if the recipient hasn't paid an upgrade fee.

The postal service could of course introduce those terms, but not retroactively.

 

[Juma]

Unfortunately, when special business interests realize that they may have to pay for their high volume over others infrastructure, or face slower service, they gin up the gullible left about their "rights" and then run to the government to demand that the ISPs to provide a subsidy through the canard of "neutrality".

You are totally clueles: the cost of high volume is already paid.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The cry for "Net Neutrality" is just another "it's all about my needs" authoritarian whine clothed in faux populism.

I think you misunderstand the issue or are arguing from a religious standpoint of "all government bad" and not a rational one. Nobody is claiming that it is about our personal needs, but rather it is about free speech and expression, access to ideas, products and services. If it were just about two media companies battling over the rights to distribute Gold Diggers of 1938, it would be a non-issue. The authoritarians in this matter are not the government, but the cable company that seeks to control what you can see, what you can buy, when you can see it, from who you can purchase it from, and how much it will cost you for various goods and services.

Few of the 'outraged' give a hoot about other's services, property rights, the market, the appropriate role of the state, or regulatory effects.

Actually we do. We see this as a great danger to capitalism and the free market. And this is why we believe you do not understand the issue. Just imagine if you needed to call the plumber of your choice and the phone company made you wait 20 minutes to connect to the extension or would connect you with directly to the plumber's competitors instead, or simply refuse to place the call rather than connect you to the the plumber you want to use. -- This is what the cable company wants to do. They want to be able to control what businesses you can use and to block competition from unapproved sources. And with the Hobby Lobby ruling, they can probably legally also block aces to ideas and groups they don't approve of.

I know that in Libertopia, you have multiple competitors and people can walk away. Guess what? Comcast is a national monopoly (seeking to buy Time Warner which it does not compete with) it also has convinced several municipalities to ban the installation of fiber-optic networks (aka competition). So both going to another provider or starting your own company is not an option.

Rose-colored glasses cannot cover over these facts.

Tney really don't need a theory as to the wisdom or propriety of NN regulation because users think that its their "right" to have equal purchasing power, or the ownership of, any fancy of their choice. Some people think they have a right to, say, equality in their TV, or a car, or housing, or food, or college education, or a new kitchen. And now, with the advent of the Internet, they have added broadband to the list of "equality essentials" that have to be extracted from the collective purse for their own wants.

Yes waiter, I would like to order the Moralistic Word Salad.

So let's get serious:

This is about is basic economics, rationing scarcity via price. It's a service and for all the hair-pulling it is just like any other service - you get what you pay for.

Nope. It's about controlling content. It's about shutting down competition.

 

[maxparrish]

"Net Neutrality" is no more sensible claiming that all forms of postal mail should be "dumb" pipes of same time to delivery, prices, and volume.

Your analogy is flawed.

To correct it, you have to make the argument that once I've put my first-class stamp on an envelope the postal service should be allowed to decide to deliver it via carrier pigeon rather than aircraft if the recipient hasn't paid an upgrade fee.

The postal service could of course introduce those terms, but not retroactively.

Your polemic sourced "knowledge" is, as one might expect, mangled. The issue is over ISP management of broad-band traffic such that an ISP can charge very high load content providers increased fees for ISP infrastructure usage, or alternatively restrict high volume traffic so that other users may benefit. It's like telling the USPS, Fed-Ex, or UPS they cannot charge for changing volumes of shipping by high volume shippers, and must treat all deliveries with the same priority.

Net Neutrality not only lets big providers escape charges, it forces more generic pricing of different kinds of users (meaning those who use movies or use skype are "subsidized" by those who do not need or want those services).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Christ... is there anything you can't find fault in?

Net Neutrality is trying to keep communication companies that own the last few miles of the line from kinking the line in order to get money (more in some cases) out of people providing services online.

Companies like Comcast are committing fraud by advertising speeds and access to online video, only to fuck over the online video streaming companies and kinking access that they promised. And you are defending it.

I'm sorry, where did he mention kinking access in the post I responded to?

I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about actual events that have occurred.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your analogy is flawed.

To correct it, you have to make the argument that once I've put my first-class stamp on an envelope the postal service should be allowed to decide to deliver it via carrier pigeon rather than aircraft if the recipient hasn't paid an upgrade fee.

The postal service could of course introduce those terms, but not retroactively.

Your polemic sourced "knowledge" is, as one might expect, mangled. The issue is over ISP management of broad-band traffic such that an ISP can charge very high load content providers increased fees for ISP infrastructure usage, or alternatively restrict high volume traffic so that other users may benefit. It's like telling the USPS, Fed-Ex, or UPS they cannot charge for changing volumes of shipping by high volume shippers, and must treat all deliveries with the same priority.

Net Neutrality not only lets big providers escape charges, it forces more generic pricing of different kinds of users (meaning those who use movies or use skype are "subsidized" by those who do not need or want those services).

I don't think you really understand the general importance of the Internet these days and where things are heading. Streaming is the present for many and will be the future for everyone very shortly. Why do you think people like Dish Network owner Charlie Ergen are developing the streaming alternative to his service? You are talking about streaming like it is 2002.

 

[maxparrish]

I think you misunderstand the issue or are arguing from a religious standpoint of "all government bad" and not a rational one. Nobody is claiming that it is about our personal needs, but rather it is about free speech and expression, access to ideas, products and services... The authoritarians in this matter are not the government, but the cable company that seeks to control what you can see, what you can buy, when you can see it, from who you can purchase it from, and how much it will cost you for various goods and services.

Or could it be that you misunderstand the meaning of free speech, and cling to the secular faith that "all expansions of government's police power and impositions of monopoly edicts on its citizenry are good"? Now which is actually an authoritarian mindset?

Free speech is the liberty of every person to express their conscious on any political or social matter they please, without being coerced under a threat of use of governments monopoly police powers. What a person expresses as their opinion and the means they use to do so is none of the government's business (or at least it should not be).

The history of government authoritarianism is well known, and chronicled in many free speech cases. And the history of the FCC, telecommunications, and broadcasting is also common knowledge. The government (on several levels) created ATT as a monopoly through "public interest" regulations, restricted "paid" (cable) TV for decades on behalf of local interests, and limited broadcasting of free speech (radio and TV) for decades.

The notion that regulation is needed to preserve free speech and expression on the Internet is hysterical nonsense. Free expression and alternative journalism exploded on the Internet precisely because government did not impose the same heavy handed restrictions that it employed in prior telecommunications and broadcasting. The commercial basis of the internet drove the expansion of the net such that free and commercial speech became cheaper and more easily broadcast than ever before.

It's no coincidence that the same liberal intelligentsia and political forces that sought to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" and "Equal Time" mandates in broadcasting support "network neutrality" edicts. The FCC would love to have the regulatory power expanded such that they can 'balance' viewpoints should the partisan need arise.

If the explosion in cellular, texting, internet, social media, and other communications since the 1996 reform is indicative of 'evil corporate authoritarianism' then let's have more of it.

Your other points I will answer as time permits.

 

[fromderinside]

I think you misunderstand the issue or are arguing from a religious standpoint of "all government bad" and not a rational one. Nobody is claiming that it is about our personal needs, but rather it is about free speech and expression, access to ideas, products and services... The authoritarians in this matter are not the government, but the cable company that seeks to control what you can see, what you can buy, when you can see it, from who you can purchase it from, and how much it will cost you for various goods and services.

Or could it be that you misunderstand the meaning of free speech, and cling to the secular faith that "all expansions of government's police power and impositions of monopoly edicts on its citizenry are good"? Now which is actually an authoritarian mindset?

Free speech is the liberty of every person to express their conscious on any political or social matter they please, without being coerced under a threat of use of governments monopoly police powers. What a person expresses as their opinion and the means they use to do so is none of the government's business (or at least it should not be).

The history of government authoritarianism is well known, and chronicled in many free speech cases. And the history of the FCC, telecommunications, and broadcasting is also common knowledge. The government (on several levels) created ATT as a monopoly through "public interest" regulations, restricted "paid" (cable) TV for decades on behalf of local interests, and limited broadcasting of free speech (radio and TV) for decades.

The notion that regulation is needed to preserve free speech and expression on the Internet is hysterical nonsense. Free expression and alternative journalism exploded on the Internet precisely because government did not impose the same heavy handed restrictions that it employed in prior telecommunications and broadcasting. The commercial basis of the internet drove the expansion of the net such that free and commercial speech became cheaper and more easily broadcast than ever before.

It's no coincidence that the same liberal intelligentsia and political forces that sought to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" and "Equal Time" mandates in broadcasting support "network neutrality" edicts. The FCC would love to have the regulatory power expanded such that they can 'balance' viewpoints should the partisan need arise.

If the explosion in cellular, texting, internet, social media, and other communications since the 1996 reform is indicative of 'evil corporate authoritarianism' then let's have more of it.

Your other points I will answer as time permits.

Been wandering around in the desert a lot lately maxparrish?

If there is a necessary service the customer deserves first consideration. That is to say any consumer within the charter of a utility should have substantially equal access to that utility at essentially same price as other customers regardless of the costs required to bring that utility to him. Else the utility owner is violating his charter to serve the public in his chartered territory.

Now we come to today. Persons in remote places pay more for substantially less access to the internet than do persons in easy to serve locations. Additionally internet providers believe they have rights to offer better prices to those who re willing to pay more for the delivery of their information while t the same time they can restrict access to information based on price to customers. Both are essentially saying the internet provider has the right to discriminate on what and who gets information based on price. This is a free speech issue.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The history of government authoritarianism is well known, and chronicled in many free speech cases. And the history of the FCC, telecommunications, and broadcasting is also common knowledge. The government (on several levels) created ATT as a monopoly through "public interest" regulations, restricted "paid" (cable) TV for decades on behalf of local interests, and limited broadcasting of free speech (radio and TV) for decades.

The notion that regulation is needed to preserve free speech and expression on the Internet is hysterical nonsense. Free expression and alternative journalism exploded on the Internet precisely because government did not impose the same heavy handed restrictions that it employed in prior telecommunications and broadcasting. The commercial basis of the internet drove the expansion of the net such that free and commercial speech became cheaper and more easily broadcast than ever before.

But don't you see, you can easily turn these two paragraphs around and say the history of capitalism is well known in that so often there will be consolidation within an industry to the point of dancing on the edge of monopoly. Convincing state governments to restrict cities from creating their own fiber networks is a glaring example of that control.
This is for all intents and purposes a new industry and we are seeing that consolidation to near monopoly. Well what we have here is that while a few humongous players may control the wires, they're not going to control what comes across those wires.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your analogy is flawed.

To correct it, you have to make the argument that once I've put my first-class stamp on an envelope the postal service should be allowed to decide to deliver it via carrier pigeon rather than aircraft if the recipient hasn't paid an upgrade fee.

The postal service could of course introduce those terms, but not retroactively.

Your polemic sourced "knowledge" is, as one might expect, mangled. The issue is over ISP management of broad-band traffic such that an ISP can charge very high load content providers increased fees for ISP infrastructure usage, or alternatively restrict high volume traffic so that other users may benefit. It's like telling the USPS, Fed-Ex, or UPS they cannot charge for changing volumes of shipping by high volume shippers, and must treat all deliveries with the same priority.

Net Neutrality not only lets big providers escape charges, it forces more generic pricing of different kinds of users (meaning those who use movies or use skype are "subsidized" by those who do not need or want those services).

Except that's not what's going on. ISPs in areas with competition have no problem with Netflix. The reason Netflix is an issue is competition. What we are seeing is the equivalent of UPS charging FedEx extra.

 

[maxparrish]

Or could it be that you misunderstand the meaning of free speech, and cling to the secular faith that "all expansions of government's police power and impositions of monopoly edicts on its citizenry are good"? Now which is actually an authoritarian mindset?

Free speech is the liberty of every person to express their conscious on any political or social matter they please, without being coerced under a threat of use of governments monopoly police powers. What a person expresses as their opinion and the means they use to do so is none of the government's business (or at least it should not be).

...The notion that regulation is needed to preserve free speech and expression on the Internet is hysterical nonsense. Free expression and alternative journalism exploded on the Internet precisely because government did not impose the same heavy handed restrictions that it employed in prior telecommunications and broadcasting. The commercial basis of the internet drove the expansion of the net such that free and commercial speech became cheaper and more easily broadcast than ever before.

It's no coincidence that the same liberal intelligentsia and political forces that sought to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" and "Equal Time" mandates in broadcasting support "network neutrality" edicts. The FCC would love to have the regulatory power expanded such that they can 'balance' viewpoints should the partisan need arise.

If the explosion in cellular, texting, internet, social media, and other communications since the 1996 reform is indicative of 'evil corporate authoritarianism' then let's have more of it.

Your other points I will answer as time permits.

...If there is a necessary service the customer deserves first consideration. That is to say any consumer within the charter of a utility should have substantially equal access to that utility at essentially same price as other customers regardless of the costs required to bring that utility to him. Else the utility owner is violating his charter to serve the public in his chartered territory.

Although the meaning of what is "necessary" is an entirely personal, subjective, and situational claim (only food, shelter, clothing, and perhaps medical care are absolute necessities to survival) the claim is also irrelevant; I doubt fast access to facebook, porn movies or new selfies rate as a human "necessity".

Moreover if 'the customer' is the first consideration who do you think is more customer oriented - a business who serves willing customers or a government code enforcement division who tells its "customers" what they can or cannot do? The whole basis of a market economy is that of makers-distributors- retailers creating and selling products and services that satisfy customer wants, and customers being free to choose whether or not they wish to purchase those wants.

Your phrase "the Charter of a Utility" is dodging based on at least one fallacy . You are attempting to prove your conclusion that ISP's are utilities and therefore cannot "violate a utility charter", but based on the same unproven premises of your argument. Why must ISP's be considered a utility whereas some other business that serve the general public are not? And if so, then why must they (in particular) be chartered? And if so, why must charters conform to your idea of 'equal access' or 'equal pricing'? Assuming the unproven initial conditions (to prove those conditions are true) is not only a logical fallacy (begging the question), its an indirect way to hide the weakness of one's argument (even from oneself).

Now we come to today. Persons in remote places pay more for substantially less access to the internet than do persons in easy to serve locations. Additionally internet providers believe they have rights to offer better prices to those who re willing to pay more for the delivery of their information while t the same time they can restrict access to information based on price to customers. Both are essentially saying the internet provider has the right to discriminate on what and who gets information based on price. This is a free speech issue.

Perhaps you have forgotten, a fundamental basis of a market economy is that a business, worker, or consumer has the right to discriminate on price and service. Absent the Sovietization of the national economy (which maybe your implicit desire), market pricing decisions are how a market society allocates the production and distribution of scarce resources between competing uses. It signals scarcity, excess, new investment, and current suppliers. It transmits consumer preferences and wants, and incentivizes greater supply when prices rise due to scarcity.

How market demand, supply, and pricing for movies, books, radio, cell phones, or the Internet is a 'free speech issue' remains an enigma, but yes...information is a commodity. It is produced and transmitted by price - be it the cost to make a movie or ship UPS parcels to Alaska. Why rural (or any other special interest) has a "right" to be subsidized by other's remains a mystery.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I think you misunderstand the issue or are arguing from a religious standpoint of "all government bad" and not a rational one. Nobody is claiming that it is about our personal needs, but rather it is about free speech and expression, access to ideas, products and services... The authoritarians in this matter are not the government, but the cable company that seeks to control what you can see, what you can buy, when you can see it, from who you can purchase it from, and how much it will cost you for various goods and services.

Or could it be that you misunderstand the meaning of free speech, and cling to the secular faith that "all expansions of government's police power and impositions of monopoly edicts on its citizenry are good"? Now which is actually an authoritarian mindset?

I don't know what you are responding to. Perhaps you want to rewrite what you said or replace the word "government" with "corporation'.

 

[ksen]

I doubt fast access to facebook, porn movies or new selfies rate as a human "necessity".

I guess if that's your only experience with how the internet is intertwined in modern life then I guess you wouldn't see the necessity of the internet.

Moreover if 'the customer' is the first consideration who do you think is more customer oriented - a business who serves willing customers or a government code enforcement division who tells its "customers" what they can or cannot do? The whole basis of a market economy is that of makers-distributors- retailers creating and selling products and services that satisfy customer wants, and customers being free to choose whether or not they wish to purchase those wants.

You should read up on the state of the modern ISP market in most places because what you describe is the situation companies like Comcast is trying its hardest to keep from happening, i.e. customers being free to choose.

Perhaps you have forgotten, a fundamental basis of a market economy is that a business, worker, or consumer has the right to discriminate on price and service. Absent the Sovietization of the national economy

Again, you have it completely backwards. It's Comcast that is trying to Sovietize the ISP market by making themselves the only player in it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your polemic sourced "knowledge" is, as one might expect, mangled. The issue is over ISP management of broad-band traffic such that an ISP can charge very high load content providers increased fees for ISP infrastructure usage, or alternatively restrict high volume traffic so that other users may benefit. It's like telling the USPS, Fed-Ex, or UPS they cannot charge for changing volumes of shipping by high volume shippers, and must treat all deliveries with the same priority.

Net Neutrality not only lets big providers escape charges, it forces more generic pricing of different kinds of users (meaning those who use movies or use skype are "subsidized" by those who do not need or want those services).

Except that's not what's going on. ISPs in areas with competition have no problem with Netflix. The reason Netflix is an issue is competition. What we are seeing is the equivalent of UPS charging FedEx extra.

No, it'd be UPS charging Amazon an extra fee to deliver the box, on top of what they already collected in the beginning to ship it. Netflix already paid someone to get their streams online.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except that's not what's going on. ISPs in areas with competition have no problem with Netflix. The reason Netflix is an issue is competition. What we are seeing is the equivalent of UPS charging FedEx extra.

No, it'd be UPS charging Amazon an extra fee to deliver the box, on top of what they already collected in the beginning to ship it. Netflix already paid someone to get their streams online.

Not quite, and here's the problem. It would be like Amazon sending a package to FedEx and then FedEx hands off to UPS who then hands it off to the customer. So what happens when UPS can't handle the the number of packages it's receiving from FedEx? That's what Comcast is complaining about. The Internet does breed strange bedfellows when you are using your competitor to deliver your product. The other solution is for Netflix to buy a Comcast circuit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, it'd be UPS charging Amazon an extra fee to deliver the box, on top of what they already collected in the beginning to ship it. Netflix already paid someone to get their streams online.

Not quite, and here's the problem. It would be like Amazon sending a package to FedEx and then FedEx hands off to UPS who then hands it off to the customer.

Not really. See, streaming companies pay to upload and people pay to download. Comcast doesn't own much of the cable between the source and the target. I'm sure Comcast's take on this would be difference if Qwest communications charged Comcast a bounty to let certain programming like ESPN3 and Netflix to go unhindered in their continental lines. So the parallel holds, Comcast wanted money to allow their customers (who were already paying for the higher service) to download the Netflix material without it being throttled back at a lower quality... forcing the company to pay extra to deliver what was already paid to be shipped (and those that paid to download were victims of fraud).

So what happens when UPS can't handle the the number of packages it's receiving from FedEx? That's what Comcast is complaining about.

Were they? Because when Comcast kinked the line, that'd imply that they were capable of distributing the services they had already sold their customers in the first place! Comcast seems to be complaining that Netflix has to pay more to them so Comcast can provide the services they were already allegedly providing their customers.

The Internet does breed strange bedfellows when you are using your competitor to deliver your product. The other solution is for Netflix to buy a Comcast circuit.

Last time I checked, Netflix offers zero live programming, so they aren't an actual competitor of Comcast.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No, it'd be UPS charging Amazon an extra fee to deliver the box, on top of what they already collected in the beginning to ship it. Netflix already paid someone to get their streams online.

Not quite, and here's the problem. It would be like Amazon sending a package to FedEx and then FedEx hands off to UPS who then hands it off to the customer. So what happens when UPS can't handle the the number of packages it's receiving from FedEx?

But in the real world Comcast could easily handle the volume. Their problem was that Netflix competes with their own streaming service. Comcast wants to control content and charge both subscribers and providers for that content.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Here's an article that MIT said that Netflix slowed it's own traffic down to blame Comcast.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/10/07/netflix-net-neutrality/16824437/

- - - Updated - - -

Not quite, and here's the problem. It would be like Amazon sending a package to FedEx and then FedEx hands off to UPS who then hands it off to the customer.

Not really. See, streaming companies pay to upload and people pay to download. Comcast doesn't own much of the cable between the source and the target. I'm sure Comcast's take on this would be difference if Qwest communications charged Comcast a bounty to let certain programming like ESPN3 and Netflix to go unhindered in their continental lines. So the parallel holds, Comcast wanted money to allow their customers (who were already paying for the higher service) to download the Netflix material without it being throttled back at a lower quality... forcing the company to pay extra to deliver what was already paid to be shipped (and those that paid to download were victims of fraud).

So what happens when UPS can't handle the the number of packages it's receiving from FedEx? That's what Comcast is complaining about.

Were they? Because when Comcast kinked the line, that'd imply that they were capable of distributing the services they had already sold their customers in the first place! Comcast seems to be complaining that Netflix has to pay more to them so Comcast can provide the services they were already allegedly providing their customers.

The Internet does breed strange bedfellows when you are using your competitor to deliver your product. The other solution is for Netflix to buy a Comcast circuit.

Last time I checked, Netflix offers zero live programming, so they aren't an actual competitor of Comcast.

Netflix is delayed programming, but it's a competitor of Comcast since people would use netflix instead of buying cable. Did Comcast in their agreement to you guarantee your speed to all websites?

 

[fromderinside]

Here's an article that MIT said that Netflix slowed it's own traffic down to blame Comcast.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/10/07/netflix-net-neutrality/16824437/

- - - Updated - - -

Not really. See, streaming companies pay to upload and people pay to download. Comcast doesn't own much of the cable between the source and the target. I'm sure Comcast's take on this would be difference if Qwest communications charged Comcast a bounty to let certain programming like ESPN3 and Netflix to go unhindered in their continental lines. So the parallel holds, Comcast wanted money to allow their customers (who were already paying for the higher service) to download the Netflix material without it being throttled back at a lower quality... forcing the company to pay extra to deliver what was already paid to be shipped (and those that paid to download were victims of fraud).

So what happens when UPS can't handle the the number of packages it's receiving from FedEx? That's what Comcast is complaining about.

Were they? Because when Comcast kinked the line, that'd imply that they were capable of distributing the services they had already sold their customers in the first place! Comcast seems to be complaining that Netflix has to pay more to them so Comcast can provide the services they were already allegedly providing their customers.

The Internet does breed strange bedfellows when you are using your competitor to deliver your product. The other solution is for Netflix to buy a Comcast circuit.

Last time I checked, Netflix offers zero live programming, so they aren't an actual competitor of Comcast.

Netflix is delayed programming, but it's a competitor of Comcast since people would use netflix instead of buying cable. Did Comcast in their agreement to you guarantee your speed to all websites?

Not quite, and here's the problem. It would be like Amazon sending a package to FedEx and then FedEx hands off to UPS who then hands it off to the customer. So what happens when UPS can't handle the the number of packages it's receiving from FedEx?

But in the real world Comcast could easily handle the volume. Their problem was that Netflix competes with their own streaming service. Comcast wants to control content and charge both subscribers and providers for that content.

Regardless of the specific item that raised up the issue Nice Squirrel's comment is still center stage. Content or provider of such cannot be even suspected of being a factor in either speed of transmission or cost of bandwidth. Cost for rate of transmission needs to be independent from cost of media. If Netflix or Comcast provides bandwidth and content all content must be transmitted to all customers at the same rate independent of the bandwidth or bit rate charge of either company. If Joe has only Netflix content then Joe is entitled to Netflix content at the native rate Netflix sends to all content customers. Regardless of bandwidth the bit rate for Joe's content must be the same as the bit rate for high bandwidth user for Megabucks Willy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's an article that MIT said that Netflix slowed it's own traffic down to blame Comcast.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/10/07/netflix-net-neutrality/16824437/

And this articles says Verizon could have easily handled the situation.

The Internet does breed strange bedfellows when you are using your competitor to deliver your product. The other solution is for Netflix to buy a Comcast circuit.

Last time I checked, Netflix offers zero live programming, so they aren't an actual competitor of Comcast.

Netflix is delayed programming, but it's a competitor of Comcast since people would use netflix instead of buying cable. Did Comcast in their agreement to you guarantee your speed to all websites?

So if I cut the cord I can watch ESPN, the latest programs on AMC and Starz, and the Star Wars cartoons on Disney on Netflix!?

No?

But you said that they are a competitor? How can they be a competitor if they don't offer live programming? There is a reason Netflix is less than $10 a month!