> You say that a 'no-blocked sites package' and 'whitelisted site package' could co-exist but fail to see that, the former one could be priced so high (once the latter gains a very large market share) that it becomes necessary for an ordinary person to limit his choices.<
See this is where pretty much everywhere gets it wrong. Prices aren't set by one side. Prices are ALWAYS set by both sides coming to an agreement.
People believe that prices are set by seller or employers, because they are usually the buyer or the employee, and they feel that they don't have the power to set prices, when the truth is that the price they want isn't just being set (and this is a good thing).
General package(no blockage) will be priced based on the supply and demand. Same is with whitelisted site package. The fact is, for most people whitelisted package where a bunch of competition websites are blocked is not a big deal. This annoys people who want cheap 'open' package.
This is precisely the reason where most proponents of net neutrality fall. You want things a certain way, but since the market will not provide you the option you want, you want it to be enforced by the government. If nobody can block anything, then there won't be any non-general packages. So make it about freedom. But it's no different than when groups interfere in the lives of other people, like preventing gay people from having sex by criminalizing it because they themselves are disgusted by it.
At the end of the day, the argument is simple, when you allow people to do something freely, will they do something you don't like?
No. Net Neutrality protects what we already have. We already pay for access to the entire internet. Customers pay ISPs for this access. When ISPs throttle (and effectively block) websites that don't pay for "priority" or inclusion, then they are lying to their customers (consumers) about the service they provide.
How is it different than saying "Defense of Marriage Act protects what we already have"?
> When ISPs throttle (and effectively block) websites that don't pay for "priority" or inclusion, then they are lying to their customers (consumers) about the service they provide. <
Every country has consumer protection clause. IF ISPs promise you full internet, but they don't offer you that, then they can be sued under most jurisdictions.
The fact is, you know that this is not what it is about. There is no fraud involved. ISPs want to offer a certain kind of service and you're afraid that most people would take it and you'd be at the losing end, so you want to use the government to force the market to move in a certain direction.
>See this is where pretty much everywhere gets it wrong. Prices aren't set by one side. Prices are ALWAYS set by both sides coming to an agreement.
The price will only be efficient in the face of robust competition. The price will not be optimal when there is a monopoly. If the telco/ISP market were actually competitive, a plan that imposed artificial scarcities (like limiting packets based on their content instead of the actual cost to transport them) would never see the light of day as competitors would offer an uncrippled product for essentially the same cost.
See this is where pretty much everywhere gets it wrong. Prices aren't set by one side. Prices are ALWAYS set by both sides coming to an agreement.
People believe that prices are set by seller or employers, because they are usually the buyer or the employee, and they feel that they don't have the power to set prices, when the truth is that the price they want isn't just being set (and this is a good thing).
General package(no blockage) will be priced based on the supply and demand. Same is with whitelisted site package. The fact is, for most people whitelisted package where a bunch of competition websites are blocked is not a big deal. This annoys people who want cheap 'open' package.
This is precisely the reason where most proponents of net neutrality fall. You want things a certain way, but since the market will not provide you the option you want, you want it to be enforced by the government. If nobody can block anything, then there won't be any non-general packages. So make it about freedom. But it's no different than when groups interfere in the lives of other people, like preventing gay people from having sex by criminalizing it because they themselves are disgusted by it.
At the end of the day, the argument is simple, when you allow people to do something freely, will they do something you don't like?