Net Neutrality

On abstract terms, both sides in the debate over net neutrality seem to have merit. We want to encourage innovative ways for providers (both ISPs and websites) to deliver services to consumers. An obvious example is a guaranteed level of service for VoIP, which is currently impossible. On the other hand, we want to encourage innovation of totally new ways to use the internet that would disrupt established business models. That would be impossible if companies and their business partners could charge higher fees for competitors' services.

But it finally came home to me while shopping for a new ISP.

I don't buy cable TV on principle, because the price is exorbitant. They have probably the highest profit margins of any industry, depending how it's measured, because they have a near monopoly on content delivery. But I love my Netflix. I can sign up for generic internet and pay a small fee for content. It's the beginning of the end for the cable companies' monopolistic charges.

But all that changes if the guys that own the wires (the cable company and the phone company) suddenly get to charge more for Netflix. Maybe it will show up in your utility bill as a streaming surcharge, or maybe they will demand payment from Netflix and it will show up in your Netflix bill. Either way, the power goes right back to the two companies that own the infrastructure.

That's the real point behind net neutrality. If the ISPs can't control what bits you download, then they can't extort the content providers (and thus the consumers).