Buzz
On December 14, net neutrality faces its most decisive moment. The FCC will vote on whether to maintain an open and free Internet, and the stakes are high. If net neutrality is repealed, Internet providers will gain the power to slow down or even block websites, apps, and services entirely.
We no longer have to speculate about their intentions. Corporations globally have repeatedly sought to circumvent net neutrality laws, revealing exactly what they’ll do if we allow it.
10. Many Companies Have Blocked Skype
When Skype was first introduced, we witnessed firsthand how Internet providers behave when there’s no regulation to stop them—they block competing services.
To the internet providers, Skype was a real threat. Since many of them offered phone plans, Skype’s cheaper alternative for making calls was a direct challenge to their business. Unable to compete, they simply shut Skype down.
AT&T pressured Apple to remove the Skype app from iPhones, and they weren't alone in this. Companies worldwide followed suit, blocking not just Skype, but any application that allowed internet-based phone calls.
The complaint was that Skype had an unfair advantage because it provided a better product. In other words, there was a new service they couldn’t compete with, so they resorted to blocking it altogether.
Comcast, Verizon, and MetroPCS were all involved in slowing down Netflix, putting a strain on its service.
In 2011, MetroPCS boasted about offering ‘YouTube access’ to customers who subscribed to their lowest-tier plan. It sounded like a good deal, but the reality was that every other video streaming service was blocked unless you opted for a pricier plan.
Their plan offered a glimpse into what the future might look like. For an additional $10, they advertised users could ‘preview and trial video content,’ though they wouldn’t actually be able to watch it. And for $20 more, users could access 18 different video streaming sites.
MetroPCS isn't the only company targeting video services. Verizon has been caught throttling Netflix users as well. While they didn’t block access to Netflix entirely, they slowed it down to the point where watching movies in HD became nearly impossible, wasting users' bandwidth.
Comcast has been guilty of this too, and their actions are particularly concerning given that they own television networks. They had clear incentives to keep Netflix from thriving. Comcast didn’t stop throttling Netflix until the company paid them. Essentially, Comcast blackmailed Netflix, sabotaging their service and refusing to halt it until they received payment—and all of this was perfectly legal before net neutrality regulations.
Telus blocked the website of their workers' union.
If internet providers had the power to block any website they wanted, it could lead to a dark, Orwellian future. A company could easily silence anyone whose views it disagrees with. As unbelievable as it sounds, this has actually occurred before.
Back in 2005, before Canada passed its new net neutrality laws, the Canadian internet provider Telus took this action. While its workers were on strike, the union created a website called 'Voices for Change' to share their complaints and demands, but Telus blocked it.
By blocking the union’s website, Telus also ended up blocking access to 766 other websites hosted on the same server. They essentially censored a whole portion of the internet because they disagreed with the content being shared.
What makes this even more shocking is that, without net neutrality, there was no law to stop them. While government censorship would have been illegal, internet providers had the freedom to do this without consequence. In the end, Telus was publicly criticized but faced no financial penalty.
7. Plusnet charged its customers extra fees just for the privilege of playing online games.
Before the United Kingdom implemented net neutrality, Plusnet came up with an unusual scheme to limit their bandwidth usage. They informed their customers that anyone who wanted to play online games would now have to pay an additional fee.
The company introduced various data plan options, asking customers to choose between browsing the internet, streaming videos, playing games, or doing all three. If customers didn’t opt for the premium plan, they would have to pay extra.
It wasn’t only video games that were restricted on the cheaper plans. VPNs were also blocked, forcing employees who needed remote access to their work to pay more. Additionally, unless you chose the most expensive plan, peer-to-peer programs like BitTorrent were slowed down to the point where they were almost unusable.
6. Comcast and Cox Cable prohibited VPN usage.
In 2001, Comcast and Cox Communications updated their terms of service, informing customers that they were no longer allowed to use a VPN unless they agreed to pay for it.
This caused significant issues. A VPN allows users to connect to other networks, which, for many people, is essential for accessing their office from home. This meant that a large number of remote workers found themselves suddenly cut off from their source of income.
When people called to voice their concerns, they received little sympathy. Comcast informed them that anyone working from home would now need to upgrade to their ' @Home Pro package,' starting at a cost of $95 per month.
Frustrated customers had no real recourse. They depended on VPNs to earn a living and had no other options. Those working from home had two choices: either pay for the most expensive plan Comcast offered or find a new job.
5. Verizon blocked Google Wallet.
In 2011, Verizon was working on its own digital wallet, aiming to revolutionize the way people made payments with just a wave of their phone. They were confident this would be a game-changer and that they stood to make a fortune from it.
There were only two major obstacles: The product's name—“Isis”—was becoming a serious liability in the market, and Google had already launched their competing product. Google Wallet was nearly identical to Verizon’s Isis, sealing the fate of Verizon’s secret initiative.
When Verizon realized they couldn’t beat Google directly, they resorted to an alternative strategy. They blocked Google Wallet on all their devices, effectively preventing their users from choosing a competitor’s service.
And it worked. Although Verizon faced accusations of violating net neutrality, they cleverly justified the action by targeting Google’s hardware rather than its software. This allowed them to sidestep legal issues, and it’s likely they’d do the same with any competitor app if given the chance.
4. Comcast Quietly Interfered with BitTorrent
Comcast isn't even being subtle about their intentions if net neutrality is dismantled. They’ve openly stated their goal of eliminating BitTorrent—and they’ve attempted this before.
Back in 2007, Comcast was exposed for blocking peer-to-peer applications like BitTorrent. Any customer attempting to share files across computers found their Internet connection unexpectedly dropping out.
Initially, Comcast denied these actions, but after enough evidence was shared online, the company could no longer deny it. They were caught and held accountable for intentionally disconnecting users who used peer-to-peer services.
Comcast didn’t express much regret. They defended their decision to block BitTorrent, calling it a ‘necessary’ action. Moreover, they’ve strongly implied they’ll do it again. If net neutrality is repealed, Comcast promises that they ‘will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content.’ But reading between the lines, it becomes clear what they mean: BitTorrent is ‘unlawful content,’ and they will shut it down once net neutrality is gone.
3. Verizon Has Admitted Their Plans to Censor the Internet
While many companies advocating against net neutrality try to conceal their true intentions, Verizon has been unusually open about theirs. They’ve explicitly stated that they wish to end net neutrality so they can have the power to censor free speech.
A Verizon lawyer informed the FCC that, as broadband providers, they see themselves as ‘transmitting the speech of others’ and believe they have the right to what they term ‘editorial discretion.’ The lawyer argued, ‘Just as a newspaper decides which content to publish and where, broadband providers should have the ability to prioritize some content over others.’
Verizon isn’t holding back. While everyone else is free to express their views online, the company isn’t fond of that. They want control over what gets published and what gets suppressed. Even when the FCC questioned them about blocking websites, the attorney didn’t rule out censorship. ‘Without these rules,’ he said, ‘we’d be exploring these kinds of options.’
That’s exactly what will happen if net neutrality is abolished. This isn’t some baseless fear or far-fetched possibility—it’s directly from their own statements.
2. Windstream And Paxfire Redirected Google Searches
In 2005, Windstream Communications tried to launch a search engine to compete with Google and Yahoo. But there was one major issue: Their search engine was terrible. No one had any reason to choose it over the more popular alternatives.
Windstream wasn’t ready to back down just yet. While nobody in their right mind would pick their search engine, what if they were forced into using it?
They came up with a daring move. They created a redirect system. Any Windstream user who typed a search into Google would automatically be rerouted to the Windstream search engine instead of seeing Google’s results.
The public was understandably angry, but Windstream wasn’t alone in this practice. Paxfire, another company, started accepting bribes from businesses to redirect Google searches. For instance, if a Paxfire user searched for ‘apple,’ they wouldn’t be given any search results; they’d be immediately sent to apple.com. Whether they were looking for info on growing apples or apple pie recipes, they’d be stuck staring at iPhones without any alternative.
1. Verizon Disabled Wi-Fi Hot Spots
When the capability to turn your phone into a Wi-Fi hotspot first emerged, Verizon Wireless saw an opportunity to squeeze more money from its users. They began offering it as a premium feature. For an additional $20 per month, customers could access their phone’s data plan through another device, like a computer.
It sounded like a great idea at first. The issue, however, was that there was no real reason for anyone to pay Verizon that extra $20. Countless apps existed that allowed users to turn their phones into Wi-Fi hotspots for free, so no one was eager to pay Verizon for a service that could be accessed without charge.
Verizon wasn’t able to compete with those free apps, so they took a different approach—they had them eliminated. They pressured Google to remove all Wi-Fi hotspot apps from the marketplace. In the process, they effectively shut down 11 smaller businesses that couldn’t keep up with Verizon’s dominance.
