Reply to post:

@Uncle Ron

First, what I meant and have repeated through all my posts is "from a net neutrality stand point".

Second, these companies were never "granted" monopolies - as though this was some special privilege that the government bestows upon worthy candidates; they became that because the government simply didn't stop them.

And AGAIN, regardless of whether this move is good or bad, I can't see how it falls foul of the interpretations of the FCC. "It'll be bad for the consumer" AKA "Comcast is a big meanie" does not change anything in that regard.

12 downvotes (and likely counting) for my posts laying this out and not one of those people has provided anything in response beyond "I don't like what they're doing" - not one explanation of why my analysis is incorrect.

Your whole argument is: "they shouldn't be allowed" to do this, and I am not saying that I disagree with you, but on what basis does "IT'S WRONG" qualify as a reason why their behaviour breaches the regulations as they have been explained by the FCC?.

Is Comcast "blocking" legal traffic? Are they "throttling" it traffic? Are they creating "fast lanes"?

Because these are the FCC's own explanation of what ISP's are not allowed to do.

I thank you for actually replying because I am constantly amazed at the way supposedly intelligent people just madly click a button but don't have the decency to actually explain why.

Your position that Comcast "shouldn't" own content services is well and good and I even agree that these should be legally distinct such as happened with Telstra being split to wholesale and retail in Australia. But, Comcast DOES own NBC, they DO own Universal Studios and the ARE ALLOWED to "put up a movie service that competes with Netflix". That's the reality and the question that must be argued right now is whether their practices are counter to the FCC's rulings.

If they are NOT, and I believe they aren't, then the discussion can turn to the concerns you put forward, which are not concerns based on existing regulation but instead your own view on what the regulation should be. And that's fair enough but doesn't impact this case right now.