We're accustomed to being able to choose what we watch on the internet. We're also accustomed to paying a fee to decide what to watch on TV (pay per view) -- and to allowing the cable company to choose what we see. Now, the phone and cable companies want to decide what you get to see on internet.
Verizon v. FCC was the first step, but it's about a lot more than cat videos (as FreePress would be quick to admit).
Right after the ruling, Netflix paid a bounty to Comcast to get access to you, the subscriber. This after months of declining speeds on Comcast and Verizon.
If you've ever lost a channel on cable, you know the powerlessness. The cable channels that you have access to are the result of an agreement between private companies in which you are bought and sold. The liars will run ads during their private dispute asking you to blame their adversary for the temporary loss of a channel. But they're both at fault and you have no power.
The monopolies' apologists say that it's expensive to deliver video to subscribers. But the monopolies have not disclosed how much they're charging Netflix. There's no reason to assume that prices and costs have any relationship. A more likely explanation is power.
After all, part of your monthly internet fee is already going to ESPN, if your ISP is on this list. How much of your fee? You don't know. And you don't have a right to know, because the fee is the result of an agreement between ESPN and your ISP (I like to call ESPN the Disney Sports Network, and ABC the Disney News Network -- feel free to add Disney epithets of your own in the comments).
Similarly, a few dollars each month of your cable fee goes to ESPN.
So what makes Netflix different? It's a competitor. It's a disruptor. It's not part of the system. It threatens to reduce the number of cable subscribers, much like Apple TV.
But why stop there? If Comcast and Verizon are gouging Netflix for competitive reasons rather than cost reasons, there are plenty of other categories of company they'd like to go after. They already offer remote storage, home security, and e-mail, to name just a few. So why not make DropBox, Gmail, and your home security provider pay too? The days of free Gmail and DropBox may be numbered.
You might get ComcastBox for free, but have to pay for DropBox. I think you should pay, but not everyone would.
Also in the future is Zero Sign On. The idea that since your ISP knows who you are, you should not have to use a user name and password to log on to each website. Verizon and Comcast could implement it as a free service that any website could use, or they could only implement it for the services that they run and for anyone who, like Netflix pays them. Which do you think they'll do? And do you think they'll allow third party zero sign on providers to offer services to you?
Do you trust your phone and cable company to tell you what you're paying for? You shouldn't. For more information than most readers want, see http://www.teletruth.org/..., especially: http://www.newnetworks.com/....