The non-competitive market move is the ISP adding their own streaming services (instead of something, say, original) and then wanting the ability to arbitrarily wall off competition by throttling that bandwidth.
Yeah a lot of criticism has suggested we'll have to pay extra for Facebook or Netflix, but seems more likely the opposite - the big established players will cut favorable deals for themselves and be folded into the basic price, like Netflix did with Comcast a few years back. It's competitors and innovators who will likely get screwed. I'm more concerned about calcification than having to pay more for the major sites.
But the rhetoric that nothing will change is comical; the telecoms didn't spend tens of millions lobbying for this against major public opposition for no reason.
Along these points, here's something I struggle with that maybe my fellow CBers can help me out with.
So the consensus is the Net Neutrality repeal is really being pushed by the telecom industry, if Comcast, Verizon, etc. didn't want this to happen, then it wouldn't be happening, right?
With that being said, why is that the telecom industry has more influence than Google, Netflix, Facebook, Amazon, etc., who I believe have all come out for net neutrality. Pretty much just Google 740b market cap), Facebook (522b market cap), and Amazon (567b market cap) combined are bigger than the entire telecom industry (1.6t market cap), and definitely bigger than any individual player (AT&T 234b market cap, Verizon 214b market cap, Comcast (183b market cap).
So are the big online companies really just paying lip service to us here? They say they're for net neutrality, but are really happy it was repealed because it puts a huge moat between them and their competition? Perhaps Netflix is the only major player that sees potential direct competition from the ISPs? I would think Google, Facebook, etc. could out lobby the telecom industry if they wanted to. So why does the telecom industry have more power than these other companies?