Replies

The levels of service that a customer consumes is charged differently ... according to EXACTLY how much is consumed by the customer or the business.

I can pay for $10 service, or I can pay for $20 service, or I can pay for $30 service, or I can pay for $60 service or I can pay for $100 service ... ALL ACCORDING TO HOW MUCH I CONSUME.

It’s exactly the same kind of differentiated levels of service with businesses, too!

Everyone gets what they pay for and it’s according to what is consumed.

TO me, the "free market" issues with respect to Net Neutrality get significantly muddled when one realizes that many of the entities involved are effectively weilding monopoly power.

Let's take Comcast here in South Florida as an example. It possesses (has been granted) a virtual monopoly on broadband connectivity delivered over cable to physical locations (homes and businesses). Such consumers can choose from a competitive array of wireless providers, but not so for wired bandwidth. And that's what pretty much every American household or business uses for their stationary internet service.

Thus, if Comcast decides to offer a streaming service (Xfinity) virtually identical to what Netflix offers, it would be unfair business practice for Comcast to restrict Netflix's bandwidth, because it would thereby be degrading Netflix's service, rendering it artificially inferior to Comcast's competing Xfinity service.

Thus, "free market" competition for such services would be crushed, which would accrue greatly to the advantage of the entity with the (essentially government-granted) monopoly power, and greatly to the disadvantage of the consumer, since their free market choices for such services would dwindle.

Allowing a large corporation to "stack the deck" against competition in this way is not what I would consider a situation which offers "free market" benefits to the consumer.

I haven't formed a final opinion or understanding of the overall Net Neutrality issue, but the debate should certainly include consideration of the fact that there are potential monopoly abuses to safeguard consumers against.

To me, this challenges the rather oversimplified notion that Net Neutrality is simply about crushing a free market. because some internet markets are certainly not free under current conditions.

I just don't see the benefit, or even the legality, of allowing large broadband providers to use their monopoly power to crush competitors. I'm not saying that Net Neutrality is the answer, but these situations must be evaluated with a view towards allowing the consumers as much choice as possible. That's one of the benefits free markets are supposed to offer...