Hacker News Reader

I thought net neutrality was about protecting consumers from selective high prices set by regional monopolies. Here it "protects" them from a free product that anyone is AFAIK free to compete with. Do I miss something or did things go wrong with the net neutrality idea?

View on HN

That's not what neutrality means. That means the ISP doesn't take anyone side - either by making certain services faster at the expense of others being slower, or by setting preferential pricing. If facebook really cared about access to internet, they could negotiated 1 free GB of traffic / month for everyone, not just access to facebook and a few other websites that they picked.

What harm is done by giving something away without restricting anyone's options? How is it similar to a regional monopoly giving preferential treatment to some content? What are the reasons to oppose this that do not apply to giving away anything imaginable?

(I understand it's a self-serving move by FB but on those grounds alone one can be opposed to anything.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com