True however if it was used for legitimate proposes like by Netflix what's your excuse for throttling if it's not piracy.
Plus I suspect that if they ever go to such draconian lengths there would just be a lot of random protocols popping up and it will turn into another race of cat and mouse until the filters get so bloated it can't handle the traffic anymore.
> True however if it was used for legitimate proposes like by Netflix what's your excuse for throttling if it's not piracy.
Without the Open Internet rules that were struck down, the excuse is "we're a for profit business, and (1) Netflix is a fat stream of revenue that we are enabling and we don't see a reason to do that without getting a big cut, and (2) Anyway, Netflix is competing with our streaming video services which are one of our major sources of revenue, so if our customers have degraded access to Netflix, that just makes our service that Netflix competes with more attractive, and brings us more revenue. So, considering both of those factors, its win-win for us to provide Netflix the choice of (1) give us more of your money, or (2) have your service work less-well, if at all, for our customers."
This is, fairly exactly, the kind of harm that Open Internet order was designed to prevent -- to the extent that broadband providers that are also video (cable TV or internet streaming) providers discriminating against competing video services was one of the things called out to illustrated what was prohibited by the non-discrimination provision.
They don't need excuses anymore. That's the point.
They can just do it, and when Netflix says "hey, we use that legitimately" the ISP can say "and if you pay us, we'll loosen the restriction, for you, for the term of the contract"
Plus I suspect that if they ever go to such draconian lengths there would just be a lot of random protocols popping up and it will turn into another race of cat and mouse until the filters get so bloated it can't handle the traffic anymore.