Tech Giants Rally Today in Support of Net Neutrality (theverge.com) 126
From a report: Technology giants like Amazon, Spotify, Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter and many others are rallying today in a so-called "day of action" in support of net neutrality, five days ahead of the first deadline for comments on the US Federal Communications Commission's planned rollback of the rules. In a move that's equal parts infuriating and exasperating, Ajit Pai, the FCC's new chairman appointed by President Trump, wants to scrap the open internet protections installed in 2015 under the Obama administration. Those consumer protections mean providers such as AT&T, Charter, Comcast, and Verizon are prevented from blocking or slowing down access to the web. Sites across the web will display alerts on their homepages showing "blocked," "upgrade," and "spinning wheel of death" pop-ups to demonstrate what the internet would look like without net neutrality, according to advocacy group Battle for the Net. But most of the pop-ups The Verge has seen have been simple banners or static text with links offering more information.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This looks like a controlled opposition op to me.
"We object! (But not too much, right?)"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit. There are plenty of examples of violations of net neutrality [freepress.net] from before and during the period when the FCC rule went into effect (and that's a very tiny list... it doesn't include Comcast throttling Netflix until Netflix paid up, ISPs who block or throttle BitTorrent, all the "zero-rating" games being played by wireless providers and a plethora of other violations.
Take your astroturfing somewhere else.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Or, maybe we could actually research who's lobying against NN: https://www.dailydot.com/layer... [dailydot.com]
Apologies, that site has tons of ads. Someone please search more and find a better link.
Bottom line, after the reading I've done, I've decided that there are
Re: (Score:2)
Complaining solves nothing (Score:2)
Just want to point out the irony that when 100,000s of people complain about this: nothing happens
Complaining rarely solves problems. Now if those 100,000's of people had actually done something, like fund a PAC, then they might have seen results.
Netflix, Apple, and Google should be against net n (Score:2)
They can afford to pay AT&T whatever fees get extorted. The smaller players won't be able to pay those fees. No individual telco would bother to make Google rivalling products especially if Google and Netflix are paying them enough. If people can't access Google on AT&T they will switch to someone else. That can't be said for podunk rivals.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Netflix, Apple, and Google should be against ne (Score:5, Informative)
They can afford to pay AT&T whatever fees get extorted.
But they don't want to pay. Also AT&T can charge high extortion rates.
. If people can't access Google on AT&T they will switch to someone else. That can't be said for podunk rivals.
Switch to who? Most ISPs have monopolies in their markets.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
At download speeds of 3 megabits per second (Mbps), which is the Federal Communications Commission’s current approximate standard for basic broadband service, 98 percent of the population had a choice of at least two mobile ISPs and 88 percent had two or more fixed ISPs available to them. . . At somewhat higher speeds, such as 10 Mbps, the typical person still is able to choose among two fixed ISPs . . .For example, only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater; only 9 percent had three or more choices . . . Moreover, four out of ten Americans did not live where very-high-speed broadband service – 100 Mbps or greater – is available. Of those with access to broadband at this speed level, only 8 percent had access to two or more providers; 1 percent had access to three or more. Only 3 percent of the population had 1 Gbps or greater available; none had two or more ISPs at that speed.
The reports says there are multiple ISPs available for 3MB/s which the government considers broadband. If you are streaming Netflix, they recommend the minimum [netflix.com] is 3MB/s for SD, 5MB/s for HD, and 25 MB/s for 4K. These are the minimums. If you live in a household with multiple users, good luck on streaming and using the internet at the same time. It also does not separate out between different types of ISPs like cable, DSL, satellite, or fiber. I considers them all as equal o
Re: (Score:2)
At download speeds of 3 megabits per second (Mbps), which is the Federal Communications Commission’s current approximate standard for basic broadband service,
The FCC defines broadband as 25 Mbps down and 3Mbps up: https://www.theverge.com/2015/... [theverge.com]
3 Mbps down is no longer considered broadband.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You admit you have options in your area but then say they are not viable to you. Viability and availability are two different things. Add to that you don't seem to think you can use one ISP off the other to negotiate a lower price out of one. That is done ALL THE TIME. I call yearly to get mine lowered and I am not talking 10 bucks or so. I get them to
Re: (Score:2)
For one you skipped over the numbers of areas where multiple vendors of 10MB/s is available. Also when it say "fixed" satellite is removed from the equation.
Now I know you didn't bother to read it. I didn't skip over the numbers. Here is the entire paragraph:
At somewhat higher speeds, such as10 Mbps, the typical person still is able to choose among two fixed ISPs. The typical person also has the option of choosing among three mobileISPs. At even higher speeds, however, the number of providers drops off dramatically. For example, only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater; only 9 percent had three or more choices
You admit you have options in your area but then say they are not viable to you. Viability and availability are two different things
So you're saying I should pick internet that I can't really use. In this discussion since we are talking about streaming videos, you'd want me to pick an ISP that can't reliably let me stream. At that point why don't you include dial-up.
Add to that you don't seem to think you can use one ISP off the other to negotiate a lower price out of one. That is done ALL THE TIME.
And how do you know I didn't negotiate? You can't know, can you? I can get a better price for 6 months, even a year. Heck I can get them to throw in free boxes. For a locked
Re: (Score:2)
They can afford to pay AT&T whatever fees get extorted.
Why the hell should Netflix, google, et al pay twice for their traffic?
Also the thing with extortionists is that you pay them once and soon enough they are at your door again asking for money.
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld. You never get rid of the Dane.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Google was on that. A bunch of ex-Googlers were in Obama/Clinton's inner circles (http://watchdog.org/265844/google-obama-revolving-door/) and campaign funds have been flowing for years. Now Google's a bit on the outside, but in 2016, their official PAC still kicked about half its cash to each party (https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00428623&cy
Not showing outside of US (Score:2)
I have to guess that since the FCC policy is a US only policy (although it would likely affect those outside of the US also), this would explain why I don't see anything when accessing any of the sites listed.
What is being displayed on the various sites?
Where is /.'s protest banner? (Score:2, Insightful)
And I don't mean this story.
Really need XXX Giants to join in (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that might actually trigger some change!
No incentive (Score:3)
There is really no competition in the ISP space. Two providers is not competition. Two is essentially sanctioned price-fixing. The consumer hasn't liked the way TV is distributed for a while now which has resulted in Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and many others. But they still all need to use the infrastructure that's owned by the cable and phone companies. If they can't charge high-bandwidth users more, they're just not going to upgrade it and you can't force them to either.
Ummm... Google, Amazon et al, please learn this (Score:2)
Hoes don't care for sweet words and enticement, they want money. So unless you throw some money at the whores in Washington, they won't listen.
The link (Score:2)
Not sure why it's buried, but here's the link:
https://www.battleforthenet.co... [battleforthenet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's because TFA discusses the written FCC comments. But the battleforthenet link might arguably be more effective.
Last Mile (Score:2)
Net Neutrality is a function of Last Mile Monopolies. Fix the last mile problem, and you won't need Net Neutrality rules foisted on us by Government and all the special interest groups paying to have their interests represented in DC, at the cost of the electorate's interests.
Seriously, do you think, even for a second, that the Politicos in DC care a shit about Net Neutrality, even when they claim they do? They care about lining their pockets with Special Interest Cash to next years campaign and vacations.
W
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds lovely. However, NONE of this is on the table today.
On the table today, is keeping the lack of competition status quo until some future undefined change. And then either keeping the neutrality rules in place that offer protections to offset that lack of competition or destroying those protections.
It's nice to say, let's add competition. But, please, actually DO THAT BEFORE you gut and destroy all the protections. There's a definite sequence that needs to be followed to prevent harm.
Re: (Score:1)
So, what? It should be on the table, because knowing where the actual problem is, allows us to fix the problem CORRECTLY. Saying corrupt politicians should be in charge of defining net neutrality laws is simply asking for more problems and worse outcome than leaving things as is. Why can't people see that franchise agreements (governmental) are the root cause of Net Neutrality issues to this day? The fix isn't more of what caused it, it is less.
Re: (Score:1)
It's fine to add this and get it on the table. And to correctly point out that it needs to change. Getting to a root cause and fixing it there is a great idea.
But, the flip side is, you can't throw out the protections that are required because that root cause isn't fixed until AFTER you fix the root cause.
Saying we're going to get rid of B because while B provides some relief it doesn't actually solve problem A. But, at the same time, we're only going to work on solving A a some undefined future date. T
Re: (Score:1)
I think most people would. Imagine the resulting proliferation of services being offered, that people seem to want, but no service provider is willing to provide?
Providing CHOICE in the market makes the market most efficient, right now, I have ONE "Choice" for Internet. That is the problem, because I have the choice of "Take it or Leave it" with Comcast laughing "Suck it" at me.
Re: (Score:1)
Been tried, communications companies have fought it tooth and nail (and often won) pretty much every-time
And thus ends Net Neutrality.
And it hasn't been tried exactly the way I am proposing. This isn't "Local Municipality Internet" this is Fiber brought to a COLO where Comcast/NBC/Universal, Netflix, Verizon/Yahoo, ATT/DirectTV, and the rest compete for my business. The fiber is maintained by the local Municipality, and only provides last mile transport.
This is decoupling the last mile transport from that which actually transits it.
Even my web host provider got involved... (Score:2)
I got a pop-up message when I visited my web host provider, DreamHost [dreamhost.com], this morning.
Please upgrade your plan to proceed.
Just kidding. You can still get to this site *for now*. But if the FCC ends net neutrality, your cable company could charge you extra fees just to use the websites and apps you want. We can stop them and keep the Internet open, fast, and awesome if we all contact the U.S. Congress and the FCC, but we only have a few days left. Learn more. [battleforthenet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Response seems kinda underwhelming. (Score:2)
After the giant list of major web businesses having a day of action - I have to say, the response seems incredibly underwhelming. Nothing on Wikipedia, nothing on Google or Amazon, Apple or Facebook - tiny banner on NetFlix - nothing on YouTube. I was expecting a "Day Of Action" where all of those major players would at least stick a popup in your face - or darken the site or some other very visible thing. To say I'm disappointed would be an understatement.
The ~500 daily visitors to my blog site will s
WHAT DO WE WANT????? (Score:1)
WHAT DO WANT????
(crowd) FREE STUFF!!!!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT?
(crowd)NOW!!!!
WHO SHOULD PAY FOR MY DOWNLOADING
(crowd)RICH PEOPLE
WHO IS THE RICH?
(crowd)NOT ME
HOW MUCH YOU MAKE?
(crowd)umm, Over $150,000?
(REST OF THE COUNTRY) STFU
Re: (Score:2)
I think you may be a bit confused about this.
WITH NetNeutrality - every end user who connects to the internet pays the same amount to their ISP, regardless of what content they transfer. They might pay more if they use more bandwidth - that's not covered by Net Neutrality.
WITHOUT NetNeutrality - the ISP can charge you more for visiting some web sites than others - they can effectively shut out websites who compete with them (imagine what Cable companies who are also ISP's might do to YouTube and NetFlix)
If tech companies were serious (Score:2)
No correlation between politicians and votes (Score:2)
If
Poor attempt to mirror CDA protest of 1996 (Score:2)
The Net Neutrality "protest" is a poor attempt to mirror the Great Web Blackout [wikipedia.org] of February 8-9, 1996 regarding the Communications Decency Act.
The difference of course is the CDA was an actual threat government infringement on online speech, as opposed to theoretical traffic allocations by private corporations, and frankly most of the protesting companies are really trying to use "net neutrality" as a negotiating tactic regarding the price of massive streaming video bandwidth (that those protesting companie
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately for you, the internet doesn't remain the same as it was in 1996.
In 1996, everyone mostly used dialup. That meant that there was worldwide custom routing available to every endpoint.
In 2017 (and, honestly, since about 2001), an "always on" connection has become the norm. You can't just dial into whatever and get a direct connection to bypass your ISP when their gatekeeping pisses you off.
Government intervention is therefore necessary, but only in the limited scope of preventing ISP's from using
Re: (Score:2)
And THAT is net neutrality. Anything else is just someone's bullshit agenda trying to whitewash itself as part of something you already know to be necessary.
Just wait until YOU become guilty of ILLEGAL PACKET PRIORITIZATION...
objective reporting (Score:1)
Well, that sure is the kind of objective reporting we like!
Re:What the web would look like? (Score:5, Insightful)
20 years ago major ISPs were not directly competing with content providers, so there was no financial incentive to fuck with traffic.
It wasn't until data services started to compete with traditional telecom services that this became a problem. For example, VoIP, which used an internet connection instead of POTS lines, could make long distance calls for basically the same price as local calls (or even less if both parties had VoIP service). This became a direct competitor to the phone companies which, at the time, were also internet service providers. The result? VoIP traffic became snarled, making it less useful, less desirable, than traditional phone services.
Now, all the major ISPs are also content providers; they have their own streaming services, their own search engines, sometimes their own shopping networks. They have every incentive to leverage their control over the access to the internet to hinder their competition.
Network Neutrality is about ensuring fair access. It's about preventing service providers from abusing their position as gatekeeper to stifle competition, whether by traffic tampering or charging fees to make them less competitive.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem is that more content these days is expected to be real time. 20 years ago most consumers were on dial-up and everything took forever to download. People were delighted with the fact that email could take minutes instead of days with snail mail. So an ISP slowing down your web browsing didn't have as much as effect as web browsing was slow. Slowing down your email to hours instead of minutes also didn't deter consumers.
The landscape today is much different. If Netflix or Hulu can't stream
Re: (Score:2)
If my ISP screwed with my connections, then why would I keep using them?
Re: (Score:2)
Because, if you're one of the vast majority of Americans, you don't actually HAVE an alternative?
I mean, I suppose you could get DSL in most places still, but you're still not going to be streaming video or anything like that.
Here's a challenge for you: If you live in the US, list all of the ISPs available in your area that provide download speeds 3Mbit or better.
=Smidge=
Re: What the web would look like? (Score:2)
I am on the side of a mountain. I am many miles from a small village. I stream multiple videos, even at once, here. I have a list of dozens. I have DSL. I can use any providers I damned well please, so long as they are willing to service me. Most of them are. They don't even have to have a presence in the State.
Re:What the web would look like? (Score:4, Informative)
Im Modding so posting this anon.
In the first 20 years there were literally hundreds or thousands of providers. Changes to the FCC definition of a phone line removed them from the common carrier status as well as the requirements that the phone company provide the service to mom and pop ISP's. So back then if AT&T tried to block something everyone would simply change to another ISP.
I ran ISP's back in the 1990's and you would not believe how many times the conversation about "Common Carrier" came up. At the time all the ISP's I know of operated on the belief that it applied to them, especially when dealing with Usenet. Because it meant we would not be responsible for the content of usenet stored on our servers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sites across the web will display alerts on their homepages showing "blocked," "upgrade," and "spinning wheel of death" pop-ups to demonstrate what the internet would look like without net neutrality.
Interesting, that's not what the web looked like for the first 20 years when there were no net neutrality rules...
For the first 10 years maybe. But in the past 10 years or so there most definitely HAS been some level of fuckery with various internet connections.
We've seen all manner of source based traffic prioritization.
We've seen connections intentionally slowed despite there being no load on the pipe.
We've seen practices that are more fitting for hollywood blockbuster involving some black cars, Italian accents and lines which all but stopped short of saying "That's a nice video you're streaming there. It's a shame i
Re: (Score:1)
20 years ago the average person's internet connectivity wasn't provided by one maybe two if your're lucky major players. Back in the dialup and early broadband era people had choices from dozens of providers. And in the early broadband era DSL was actually competitive with cable. DSL is a joke these days. These days DSL is comparable to the "Essentials" plans that cable companies will provide steeply discounted to those on public assistance. Now in most cases you are suck with one provider your monopoly cab
Re: What the web would look like? (Score:2)
Huh... I kinda like my DSL. It is 1.5 up and 12.5 down. I pay like $35/mo for it. I'm pretty happy with the speeds, price, and competition. The PUC ensures I can get service from anyone willing to provide it. I can, and have, switched providers. I get ~15 down, by the way. I pay for 12.5.
Re: (Score:2)
Except I'm quite happy with my throughput and costs. I am perched on the side of a mountain. I'm pretty content with this level of service. I don't even need any more speed.
Regulation helps incumbents (Score:4, Insightful)
Forced "neutrality" hurts them none. To cause them actual pain, promote competition. Government regulations help incumbents [washingtonexaminer.com] — be they cabbies under threat of Uber, hoteliers hurting from AirBnB, or the etablished ISPs facing off would-be competition [arstechnica.com].
Re:Regulation helps incumbents (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem here is that it's incumbent vs incumbent. And in this struggle, I side with the one that actually allows competition to arise.
What you're dealing with is the same we had in Europe in some countries where monopolists that owned the cable networks (that the taxpayer paid for) were privatized. Those countries where they were forced to split the company into one that owns the cable and one that provides ISP services prospered and now have some rather stiff competition between ISPs that the cable-owning ex-monopolist has to sell at the same conditions as their former "other half", while countries where that ex-monopolist was allowed to own the cable AND become an ISP now struggle because they, of course, tried to make it near impossible to use those cables by competing providers.
I'm lucky. My internet is affordable, and should my provider try anything funny I'm gone before he's done making me some offer to stay because I have a few others to choose from, in the middle of nowhere, not in some large city.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, you misunderstood.
Yes, you are lucky to have a choice of competing service-providers. My argument is, government regulation reduces competition, making all people less lucky and some — completely unlucky.
Re: Regulation helps incumbents (Score:1)
Government regulation reduces competition when it reduces competition. When it increases competition, it increases competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite, had the government not kept the cable monopolist from also becoming an ISP, we'd now have one ISP because it's prohibitively expensive to become a competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
We are repeatedly [seattletimes.com] told [nytimes.com], "net neutrality protects the little guy" — a notion made rather suspect by the concern of the giants like Amazon.
Well Amazon is talking about their customers so the fact that net neutrality benefits them as well as consumers (which are the "little guys") isn't all that suspect.
OMG, how did we live in 2014?..
You are aware that the fight for net neutrality precedes 2014 right? It wasn't until 2014 that the Court of Appeals decided that the FCC could not enforce it under Title I protections but could enforce it under Title II.
Translation: owners of the networking equipment and cables are prevented from doing what they want with their property. War is peace. Regulations are liberty.
No. Translation: All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others. Some owners decided they can charge more for premium a
Re:I do not trust giants worrying about "little gu (Score:5, Informative)
The write-up this. If you wish to dispute it, you need to offer citations. When did the regulations about to be abolished come into effect?
Er? Please read up on the history [wikipedia.org] before you comment.
How is this wrong?
Okay let's start out that everyone pays for a connection. Netflix pays Level 3. You pay your ISP. You pay for a Netflix subscription. Your ISP should deliver Netflix if you want; however, your ISP wants to charge Netflix to send you data that you and Netflix already paid to send. Is that simple enough?
So? Why should it be the concern of the government and the citizenry, what these private companies do?
Why should it be concern of the government if private companies are wronging the citizenry? Is that the exact question you are asking?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should it be concern of the government if private companies are wronging the citizenry? Is that the exact question you are asking?
Which ISPs are wronging their customer? How are they doing it? I have yet to see any evidence of ISPs actually doing things like slowing connections and blocking sites, just a lot of talk about what they could do.
In the scenario you presented, a customer would just switch to a different ISP. But there aren't any other ISPs to switch to you say. Well, that's because government is allowing the monopoly. Now you think government is going to help you with Net Neutrality? Net Neutrality will be used to ce
Re: (Score:2)
Which ISPs are wronging their customer? How are they doing it? I have yet to see any evidence of ISPs actually doing things like slowing connections and blocking sites, just a lot of talk about what they could do.
I would say you don't read the news or are lying about it.
Would you say Comcast suing Chattanooga to prevent it from offering fiber [theverge.com] more than talk?
If we stick to just his alone, there are [dslreports.com] more examples [engadget.com]
Re:I do not trust giants worrying about "little gu (Score:5, Insightful)
We are repeatedly told , "net neutrality protects the little guy" â" a notion made rather suspect by the concern of the giants like Amazon.
I don't see a conflict here.
Amazon offers an on-demand video streaming service. Verizon offers an on-demand video streaming service. Verizon ALSO controls access to these services for its customers. Without Network Neutrality there is nothing to prevent Verizon from either snarling Amazon's traffic (making their service lower quality), and/or charging Amazon more for the speed/bandwidth everyone else is getting by default (making them less competitive on price).
So of course Amazon and others have a financial stake in this. The "little guy" does, too, since they're the ones who will end up paying more for inferior service at the end of the day.
The other side is new companies (aka the "little guys") that may be able to bring something innovative and new to the market, but would be hindered by anti-competitive practices by ISPs. Imagine, for example, if the major ISPs were all already offering video hosting and streaming services before YouTube was a thing... and decided that the fledgling YouTube would have to pay extra for the speed and bandwidth they needed to operate...
And if you want proof-in-the-pudding that Network Neutrality is a good thing, just look back to the bad old days before POTS providers were classified as common carrier. Once the Telecommunications Act of 1996 kicked in, competition increased and telephone service prices (especially long distance) dropped significantly, because the owners of the copper now had to treat all traffic - including the traffic of their competitors - equally.
=Smidge=
Re:I do not trust giants worrying about "little gu (Score:4, Informative)
Nothing other than my switching to XFinity or someone else available in my area, you mean?
The good old competition argument. That would be great if there was actually someone else available. Most areas only have 1 or 2 ISPs. Both ISPs are probably content providers too, so they will both be violating neutrality. We won't have real competition on ISPs so long as they are tied to telecoms, which are natural and regulatory monopolies.
Point is, they are not "little".
No, you've taken the statement out of context and twisting words. The term "little guy" means customer and startup web sites. Yes, neutrality protects "big guys" too, but that doesn't invalidate the point or make the statement wrong.
Are you saying, YouTube became a thing after 2015? Seriously?.. Really?..
No. Smidge204 did not say that. Seriously, really. He didn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Without Network Neutrality there is nothing to prevent Verizon from either snarling Amazon's traffic (making their service lower quality), and/or charging Amazon more for the speed/bandwidth everyone else is getting by default (making them less competitive on price).
Yet, THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.
ISPs know they are in the business of providing Internet service. They know they can't really take hobble Internet streaming competitors without pissing off their customers.
The Netflix speed index [netflix.com] for the US continues t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you! I can't believe people are just buying into these claims of harm despite there being on evidence it's actually happening. Net Neutrality is a solution to an imagined problem.
And what proof would you accept of harm? Would an ISP suing a city so that it didn't provide broadband to residents be harm for you?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yet, THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.
Except when it does. [technical.ly]
Not the first time either [wired.com]
Those are the things that caused Network Neutrality to become an issue. I'm sure there's more, more subtle examples that have been less widely publicized too.
Now imagine if there was explicitly no legal framework to prevent this. Imagine if it was not only expressly legal but accepted. There would be no competition for online services, no innovation, and higher prices for inferior service.
So when you say shit like this:
If a problem comes along, and it is a REAL problem, THEN regulate.
You clearly have your head in the sand.
=Smi
Re: (Score:2)
In the 2013-2014 incident, Netflix purchased transit from Cogent, which had a settlement-free peering arrangement with Comcast. Shortly after Cogent began delivering Netflix traffic requested by Comcast subscribers, Cogentâ(TM)s routes into Comcast's network started to congest, reaching a level where it began to affect the performance of Netflix streaming for Comcast's subscribers.
Comcast suggested that Netflix pay for the connectivity required to deliver the content to the Comcast network. They did.
Re: (Score:2)
We are repeatedly [seattletimes.com] told [nytimes.com], "net neutrality protects the little guy" — a notion made rather suspect by the concern of the giants like Amazon.
Anyone who doesn't own the pipe itself is "little" in this regard. Just because Amazon has a net worth large enough to buy a small country doesn't mean he would happily hand over money to any schmuck who says "That's a fine connection you have there, it would be a shame if someone were to throttle it".
Big companies didn't get to be big companies by giving other companies charity, and size is not a defining factor on whether two companies can be aligned on a common issue.
OMG, how did we live in 2014?..
I'll tell you how we lived. We lived