

Ask HN: Do I Really Want *Net Neutrality*? - graycat

Okay, I&#x27;ll ask a question about <i>net neutrality</i>:<p>My ISP has several options with download speeds from
15 million bits per second (Mbps) up to 101 Mbps.
And the faster options also have faster upload
speeds and cost more.<p>Just now I don&#x27;t much need or want one of the faster
speeds so have the cheapest option, but later I may
want&#x2F;need a faster speed and want to be able to get
it and will be willing to pay more to get it.<p>So, question:  Would <i>net neutrality</i> mean that my
ISP could offer only one option on speed?  If so,
then that option would likely be faster than my
current speed and cost me more which for now I would
not like.<p>Of course, maybe none of what I&#x27;ve just outlined is
the real issue, that is, maybe there is a <i>hidden
agenda</i>.  So, maybe my ISP would work with, say,
Vimeo and give me good service when I was using
Vimeo but not work with YouTube or Netflix and from
them, then, give me poor service, largely
independent of what option I am buying from my ISP.
So, in effect, my ISP and Vimeo could have a
monopoly on video streaming to my computer and,
then, one way or another, be able to charge more,
say, from Vimeo to my ISP, or get higher revenue,
say, to Vimeo, as my access to Netflix and YouTube
were degraded.  Is something like that what is going
on?<p>If that&#x27;s what&#x27;s going on, then maybe what we should
be asking for is for all the <i>carriers</i>, and call
them <i>common carriers</i> to publish a list of
speed&#x2F;service options with prices and, then, let
anyone, at both ends, the user end and the server
end, select their option, pay for it, and get it,
with no funny business.  Is that what we should be
asking for?<p>Or FedEx has more than one shipping option, and the
faster options cost more.  No squabble there, right?
======
TheBiv
> question: Would net neutrality mean that my ISP could offer only one option
> on speed?

Even if your ISP made it one speed with one price, then you would shop around
and find the best speed at the best price, which is why you would definitely
want Net neutrality bc it leads to competition on the ISP's.

~~~
graycat
Ah, but an ISP for a consumer, instead of a business, commonly has a local
monopoly so that I have only one choice for my ISP and can't "shop around".

------
pwg
> Would net neutrality mean that my ISP could offer only one option on speed?

This is not what "net neutrality" is meant to cover.

> So, maybe my ISP would work with, say, Vimeo and give me good service when I
> was using Vimeo but not work with YouTube or Netflix and from them, then,
> give me poor service, largely independent of what option I am buying from my
> ISP.

This is exactly what net neutrality is intended to cover. Although often what
is going on is this instead:

You buy internet from verizon (just picked them arbitrarily as an example) -
they also sell you cable tv at an added cost - both sent over the same
wires/fibers.

So, verzon is selling you two different services: internet access and cable
tv.

But, via. your "internet access" service, you can also buy netflix, amazon
prime tv, vimeo, hulu+, etc., all of which also see you "cable tv" (of varying
different "degrees").

So, verizon actually has a conflict of interest here. On one hand, they are
selling you a service (network traffic to the internet) that provides you an
ability to buy "cable tv" from someone other than verizon. They (verizon)
would naturally prefer you pay them for cable tv than pay someone else,
because they receive more income that way. So they (verizon) have a profit
incentive to artificially make netflix, amazon prime tv, vimeo, hulu+, etc.,
appear to be "less capable" or "lower quality" than their own cable tv
package, in order to encourage you to buy from them instead of buying from the
other guy.

That's usually where the "net neutrality" issue really comes up. If the ISP's
were only network providers, there would be little incentive on their own part
to artificially make one network endpoint look slower/faster/better/worse than
another. But because of the consolidations they are no longer just ISP's, they
are ISP's plus content providers (the cable tv sides). And that produces the
conflicts of interest that result in the motives to prioritize one service
over another. And often the incentive is to try to suggest to their customers
that their internet pipe can't make a perfectly good cable tv delivery
mechanism at the same time. Because if you the customer realize your fast
internet pipe can double as a cable tv delivery means, then you also realize
you don't need to pay 2x70/month but only need to pay 70/month (also picking
70 at random). So their income would collapse by half overnight if enough
customers realized that fact.

