All players in the retail industry should be opposed to the proposed repeal of net neutrality. Net neutrality enables all retailers to play on a level playing field and by eliminating this, the largest players like Amazon and Walmart will have an even greater advantage over most every other retailer. While the impact on retail will be significant, the repeal of net neutrality has consequences to virtually every aspect of how we use the Internet. I strongly agree that this proposal will put far too much power in the hands of ISPs to control what has become an essential service.

Ninety-eight percent of Americans support net neutrality. This proposed FCC action gives ISPs the power to control what consumers see and do on the Internet by favoring certain content or blocking it altogether. Brands and retailers alike should be alarmed, and should visit http://www.gofccyourself.com to comment. It’s hard to imagine that this basic right is endangered, but it is, and good people will have to step up.

The potential repeal of net neutrality rules will not only have a negative impact on the entire retail industry, but also commerce in general. All of the benefits of a level playing field of the online marketplace would be removed, and only the dominant commerce goliaths, such as Amazon, Walmart, and others, would be able to survive and thrive, as they have the ability to absorb the incremental costs.

Smaller, entrepreneurial digital companies would be hard-pressed to compete in this new paradigm, and it could have a stifling impact on small businesses who have an online presence as well. Our economy would also be impacted by this repeal, and the consequences could be broad reaching, beyond just the retail industry.

“Should both large and smaller players in the retail industry be protesting or supporting the potential repeal of net neutrality rules?” How about if everyone protests. Not only does this give greater power to the large users like Amazon and Walmart, it discourages new ideas and entrepreneurs from using the internet to develop new businesses. I think it is ironic that the commentary suggested that the heavy users will be charged more. Since when do we charge our best customers more? The reality is that the heavy users will get discounts while the light users will pay a premium.

A repeal of net neutrality would lead to “tolls” on the Internet, which will find their way to the consumer’s pocket. It is management’s role to maximize value for shareholders, and due to personal incentives they often have only a near-term view. Undoubtedly, ISPs will want to tap into the revenue streams of Amazon, Facebook, Google, Reddit, Netflix, Airbnb, Spotify, et al.

In the pursuit of value, ISPs could establish comparable services for free. However, if a consumer wishes to access competitive sites and services an ISP could charge consumers similarly to how they charge for content today (e.g. “online shopping fee” or “social media fee” or “music streaming fee”), block services, or otherwise degrade the experience. ISPs could selectively charge service providers to gain access to customers as well.

If repealed, I think this will also lead to great competition for the ISPs as certainly the larger Internet companies will start to move more aggressively into the space. Facebook and Google already have land-based and air-based Internet service offerings.

Like so many things this year, I just don’t get it. Retailers should go in blazing about this. Good news for Spectrum and others, but everyone else? Baffling.

Stupid, unfair and counterproductive. We cannot let this happen. Walmart, Amazon and any other major player must be on the side of an even playing field or retail and many other industries will suffer the consequences and it will not be pretty.

Let’s see. Comcast, Verizon and AT&T say “the RULES prevent them from offering customers a wider selection of services at HIGHER and lower price points.” Are you kidding me? Reflect upon the past 20 years of nightmare customer experience and customer service with these three telecoms? Oh sure, “Mr. Pai’s draft order will require ISPs and telecom companies to be “TRANSPARENT” instead of being regulated by the FCC.” Talk about “suspending disbelief!” Have we learned nothing from the past?

A repeal lets the monsters out of their cages, gobbling up the net neutrality we all enjoy, making it unaffordable for many retailers to compete. STOP the mind-boggling suspension of disbelief. Or find an the internet run by corporations with unlimited access to wealth.

Imagine if the highways were privately owned and the owner had the right to deny trucks owned by certain companies from using the highway, or to relegate them to lanes filled with traffic and potholes. While the “Internet as superhighway” metaphor may be beaten to death, it is entirely appropriate here. One might hope that the cable companies wouldn’t abuse their power and only, as they say, charge more for super-fast content delivery. The reality, though, is that these companies are monopolies, the result of government subsidization and protection, which will focus first, second and third on their bottom line. They are not going to be satisfied using their newfound power to extract a little bit of extra revenue from online powers such as Netflix, Google and Amazon.

This is a terrible move that will only lead to preferred providers, extra costs to consumers and more fine print passing as transparency. Everyone should be up in arms about this.

There are so many myths and erroneous assumptions about this; it is hard to know where to begin! The starting point has to be the issue of free speech. Regardless of anything else, this is not a free speech issue. The right to free speech does not equate to the right to be given a microphone, soapbox, an internet connection, bandwidth or anything else that someone has to provide. Those things can only be obtained via voluntary contract and consent. The second issue is that net neutrality assumes that internet infrastructure is a monopoly. In reality, it isn’t. There are a plethora of providers and a whole host of ways in which connections are made and maintained — from server farms to private peering to multihoming. This fluidity means no one player can dominate, impose unreasonable prices or restrict services. As such, the system is self-governing and doesn’t need excessive regulation. The third assumption is a view that, somehow, providers can discriminate without consequence. Ultimately, providers have to answer to customers too. If Comcast decided… Read more »

The key to this issue is balance. Balancing an open, unrestricted internet versus offering the smaller players to compete on a level playing field with the giants. I think there’s some good reason to support the current regulations, while a repeal would certainly benefit the largest entities, but would most likely restrict unbiased competition.

Rolling back net neutrality is yet another thinly veiled excuse to empower the telecom titans to create further tiers of services and charge for access to a system that was funded by American taxpayers. It’s another way for the rich to become a lot richer while allowing the corporate and wealthy elite to control information and communication. History has taught us that any time a select few selectively control information flow to the populace, we all suffer. It will be interesting to find out how our current President and his minions have their financial interests in these telecoms … rest assured, they do!

Everyone associated with the retail industry, from consumers to major brands should stand together in opposition to the repeal of net neutrality rules. This has been the only thing keeping the closest to a level playing field as the industry will get, allowing retailers and brands, big and small, equal access to their consumers. To say that “data-gobblers” like Netflix should pay more than others is un-American to say the least, equivalent to penalizing them for their success with consumers! If the telco providers were to create these “low-cost” options they claim, would you see equal access to Netflix and small content providers alike? Probably not — given they would more likely strike content deals with a Netflix or other large provider at the expense of smaller ones. When have ISPs had consumers’ best interests at heart? The end result will be that retailers will end up paying more to access their own customers with the content they’ve been asked to provide that ISPs and telcos want to block, or at the very least take… Read more »

Everyone should be working to protest the proposed repeal of net neutrality. Everyone.

As for retail, I worry this polarizes e-commerce and squeezes out mid-sized and smaller brands and retailers. I can only see this as limiting choice and innovation.

At the risk of being attacked … I am not up in arms about this issue. Mark Cuban observed last week that he’s not opposed to Net Neutrality but concerned that NN managed by the FTC is not going to have the result that the Net Neutrality proponents hope for. (I’m also skeptical that we’re being drawn into a fight between self-interested behemoths on both sides — Google, Amazon, and Netflix match Verizon, AT&T and Comcast in their zest for self interest.)

It’s a stretch for me to believe that ecom will suffer from this battle. The critical reality is that services like Netflix consume HUGE proportions of web bandwidth and retailers should be most concerned about that.

My advice to retailers is that they have far more important issues to fight — like having good, interesting, innovative product mixes displayed in stores people want to visit at prices where they make profit and supported by advertising that drives foot traffic.

Everybody should be protesting the potential repeal of net neutrality rules. The only companies that have something to gain from this are the Internet providers like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T.

This would be horrible for retailers and consumers, as it would open the doors for Internet providers to charge exorbitant rates for Internet services. It will also make it cost prohibitive for start-up companies that offer data intensive services. Without data neutrality, we would not have witnessed the rise of companies like Facebook or Netflix. It would be the end of the world as we know it and would stifle the creativity that has made us the tech powerhouse we are today.