Can someone explain "Net-Neutrality" to me?

[JoelKatz]

As a perverse scenario, imagine Pepsi pays Videotron to slow down any packets mentioning Coke.

Either this bothers their customers or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then why should you get all worked up about it?

Suppose Videotron doesn't have a monopoly. If so, and it bothers their customers, they'll leave. Again, why should you get worked up about it?

Suppose Videotron does have a monopoly. What you should want is customers to have more choices as this not just solves multiple problems including cost and service options. Allowing companies to take money for differential packet services allows them to make more revenue per customer (because they're getting paid by sources other than the customer) and to differentiate their service (some do differentiate, some don't, and how much, and which destinations). Both of these things are pro-competitive.

The basic fear -- that businesses will provide services customers don't want -- is extremely unlikely to happen. Every company that doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly can't get away with this. Any company that has something resembling a monopoly wants to do everything it can to discourage competitors from entering the market.

 

[lomiller]

Either this bothers their customers or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then why should you get all worked up about it?

As mentioned before there is seldom more then 1-2 actual network providers in any given area anyone else is simply re-selling these same services. If both network providers are bumping up the price for NetFlix, Amazon and Google in order to promote their own services what can consumers do even if they are not happy with the service?

 

[blutoski]

The basic fear -- that businesses will provide services customers don't want -- is extremely unlikely to happen. Every company that doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly can't get away with this. Any company that has something resembling a monopoly wants to do everything it can to discourage competitors from entering the market.

The intermediate scenario is oligopoly - a few players with high barrier to entry and limited competition.

This is the current state of voice and data deployment in the US and Canada, and thus the motive for proposing a regulatory remedy.

 

[blutoski]

The intermediate scenario is oligopoly - a few players with high barrier to entry and limited competition.

Recent op/ed relating to this type of industry consolidation in the US: [Why AT&T’s deal for T-Mobile must be blocked]

The point is that deregulated carriers would rationally merge into one natural monopoly and increase prices until profits came just short of cost of entry for a new competitor. It's unlikely that consumers would benefit from a completely deregulated communication infrastructure.

The remedy is regulatory, and productive discussion is about what kind of regulation. Francesca R has indicated that she favours regulation that increases the number of competitors, for example.