If all roads were owned by companies, should it be OK for UPS to charge FedEx or ambulances more to drive on its roads?
This is imperfect, obviously, but I think it gets close to the core issues fairly concisely.
Frankly, I, as a citizen, think you should be allowed to sell the pipe, what goes over the pipe, or what the consumer connects to the pipe, but only one of the three. I like that this has reasonably clear divisions and provides competing interests that keep the other parties in check.
That's because this analogy misses the point. We are in a thread about the difficulty explaining a problem I suppose.
Discriminating based on the type of traffic is arguably a good thing so long as it's done in good faith. Real time connections like VOIP and streaming ought to get higher priority.
It's the destination that really matters. Since UPS owns the roads and partners with Amazon, shipments from Jet.com are limited to 15mph while trucks carrying Amazon packages can go 60mph.
Or if you want something that's more like actual shipping a better example might be only UPS is allowed to deliver packages on the roads they own (like last mile ISPs), and because of their partnership with Amazon, only packages from them can have next-day shipping.
They do charge different kinds of vehicles different prices to drive on toll ways and many cities have freeways w/o tolls and a parallel express lane you can choose to pay a toll to use.
But can we truly say that these for-profit, mostly un-regulated telecom providers whose mandate is to make money for their shareholders, will put that money towards "wear to the roads" and "upgrading the road system"? How many homes in America don't have access to Broadband internet? IN 2016?
Even more, how do we know that these telecom providers will only charge as much as is needed for the maintenance of the roads, and not just slap on more costs?
We can't even really blame the telecom companies for this, either, as they do have a responsibility to their shareholders to make as much money as possible, but in a monopolized market, as ISPs are in most cities in America, the government has to step in at some point to protect the consumer's interests.
> But can we truly say that these for-profit, mostly un-regulated telecom providers whose mandate is to make money for their shareholders, will put that money towards "wear to the roads" and "upgrading the road system"?
Yes, because of competition or the threat of competition. This works for CPU vendors and toll roads; why shouldn't it work for internet service (which is rather fungible)?
> How many homes in America don't have access to Broadband internet? IN 2016?
I don't know; what are you trying to tell me? Are you saying it's too little or everyone has broadband internet?
> We can't even really blame the telecom companies for this, either, as they do have a responsibility to their shareholders to make as much money as possible, but in a monopolized market, as ISPs are in most cities in America, the government has to step in at some point to protect the consumer's interests.
Assuming a monopoly:
a) Wouldn't antitrust law work if the ISP tried to prioritize their own pages (like their streaming video services)?
b) If people wanted net neutrality the ISP would offer such a plan. But then you might say the ISP will price that too high. But why didn't they price normal non-neutral internet service too high then? The threat of competition forces them to price plans reasonably.
There's a difference between treating all cars the same and all trucks the same vs. treating trucks operated by a specific company differently. Imagine if the fee to cross the bay bridge was different based on what company you worked for? Or imagine that the fee to cross the bridge depended which neighborhood in SF you were driving to?
This is imperfect, obviously, but I think it gets close to the core issues fairly concisely.
Frankly, I, as a citizen, think you should be allowed to sell the pipe, what goes over the pipe, or what the consumer connects to the pipe, but only one of the three. I like that this has reasonably clear divisions and provides competing interests that keep the other parties in check.