Ask HN: Do I Really Want *Net Neutrality*? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Do I Really Want Net Neutrality?

1 pointgraycat3 comments

Okay, I'll ask a question about net neutrality:

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.

Just now I don't much need or want one of the faster speeds so have the cheapest option, but later I may want/need a faster speed and want to be able to get it and will be willing to pay more to get it.

So, question: Would net neutrality 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.

Of course, maybe none of what I've just outlined is the real issue, that is, maybe there is a hidden agenda. 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?

If that's what's going on, then maybe what we should be asking for is for all the carriers, and call them common carriers to publish a list of speed/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?

Or FedEx has more than one shipping option, and the faster options cost more. No squabble there, right?

> 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.

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".

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com