Re: It's because those scenarios were just as outlandish and uninformed as those against net neutrality.
Both "sides" often exaggerate their points; that's politics 101. That doesn't mean that all of their predictions will be entirely wrong.
Re: blocking Netflix unless you pay extra wasn't going to be a thing
How do you know they wouldn't eventually do that? If they have competing content, it would be profitable for them to charge more for competitor content. Do I need to make a spreadsheet for you to show you why? Why would they otherwise skip profits?
If all you had to do to make profits was impose whatever outlandish pricing models pop into your head, everyone would do it and internet would cost infinity dollars.
No one would actually pay this. There'd be mass outrage and as much as the memes like to imply Ajit Pai works for Comcast, the FCC would easily be forced to step in (no blanket net neutrality law doesn't mean the FCC isn't allowed to step in when needed).
It's in the best interests of the ISP to not do egregious things that force the FCCs hand or stir up public outrage.
Re: "If all you had to do to make profits was impose whatever outlandish pricing models pop into your head, everyone would do it and internet would cost infinity dollars."
No, because everybody can and do make short cat videos such that they are a dime a dozen, and thus can rarely demand a premium. But sitcoms are social events such that everyone wants to see what everyone is talking about, giving them the ability to charge a premium over garage-made sitcoms. Nor can Joe YouTube form his own regional sports team; franchises such as NFL would sue. (A few break-out YouTube stars can charge or add more ads due to this social networking premium.)
Re: "No one would actually pay this." - Historically people have and do pay a premium when they have no other realistic choice. Sorry, but the long history of oligopolies and monopolies shows you are wrong.
Re: "It's in the best interests of the ISP to not do egregious things that force the FCCs hand or stir up public outrage."
Too many CEO's think short-term: get mine now, the future is somebody else's problem. The cable industry has a customer satisfaction record second worse of ALL industries, just behind airlines. It took crying babies and lost luggage to not be 1st.
The question I always had amid the doomsayers predictions was "Why would I buy that service?"
Double the monthly bill for access to a limited number of websites that I probably don't care about, no thanks. I'm sure many people feel the same way. Seems like a bad move business wise. Looks like I was right.
Forced bundling is a common sign of monopolies-gone-awry. Most consumers want a-la-carte selection of shows, services, and sites; but are forced into bundled deals because the big providers make a-la-care far too expensive.
Disbanding regulations when companies are that much dug in to a market where there can't reasonably be any competition speaks of extremely anti-taxpayer corporatism, especially when these companies are receiving tax money from the government. I'm leaning towards thinking that the FCC is due some sort of investigation into its activities...
I'm usually not a fan of regulation but it really needs to be said that when huge companies that are often bigger than a lot of the world's government basically come to own huge chunks of critical infrastructure, what other bargaining chip does the average tax payer have to have their interests represented?
That being said, the article mentioning that Verizon is cutting 10k people from its media arm is disingenuous. It has nothing to do with net neutrality, it's a case of large companies misjudging the market for VP-funded, artificially grown blog companies. It has nothing to do with anyone's infrastructure. A multi-national with multiple arms in multiple lines of business will make decisions independent of its own arms and dependent on the market.
It seems premature to claim that it's "clear". It's only been a year. We're talking about the major providers, who can only be expected to move so fast, either to expand things or to fall apart. Neither the best nor the worst cases materialized.
I'd say it's sufficient to leave the burden of proof on those who demanded the change, to at least defend the notion that great improvements are coming. At the very least a risk occurred without any payoff. But it seems to me that there is still plenty of time for both the risks and rewards to materialize.
Shouldn't those who said the world would end with the killing of net neutrality be asked why the world has not ended, also why there has been no noticeable change? If you are reading this now, your action proves that all the claims of those who predicted disaster were nonsense and... dare I say, fear-mongering.
Making oligopolies even more "oligopolic" rarely improves the lives of consumers. Almost any economist not in the back pockets of large corporations will agree with this assessment.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-per...
http://time.com/82409/wheeler-net-neutrality/
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/tom-wheeler-net-neutr... http://time.com/74703/net-neutrality-fcc-rules-plan-angers-a...
But then 2016 and suddenly we got hit with an MIB neurolizer and Wheeler was the hero we all wanted, not the shill the lobbyists bought.