This is one of the reasons why Net Neutrality is so important.
Everybody and their brother wants to lock you in to their platform (whether it's a phone or an ISP) then split, differentiate, and bundle the product in so many complex ways you'll be lucky if you even understand what you're purchasing.
Cell phone companies have already done this. Airlines as well. So have insurance companies. They make money by farming the walled garden in such a way as to make it look like you have increased choices, but, mirabile dictu, all the choices end up with you paying more money each month.
Cell phone companies have already done this. Airlines as well. So have insurance companies.
While I agree with you in general, airlines in your example are clearly wrong.
As a matter of fact: It's precisely the other way and airlines are actually unbundling their services.
Bundling is when everything (luggage, food, seat assignment, check in fees) are included in the price of your ticket, if you want it or not. Unbundling is exactly the opposite.
I.e: You pay for the basic service (the flight) and if you want to check in luggage, order a meal, assign a choice seat , or whatever you pay for those extras.
I actually don't mind this practice, provided that an airline is transparent about it, it's clearly lined out during the booking process (if the final price say 232$, I don't have any mystery charges for that booking on my credit card) and as long I'm not sandbagged at the airport (for example: paying an additional 10$ "check-in" fee).
It's always sad to see Libertarians sacrificing their principles as soon as it involves a slight inconvenience to themselves.
Net Neutrality means handing control of the internet to the government. Regulatory capture and special interests will ensure any Net Neutrality legislation is an unworkable mess that sets investment in the internet back decades.
For video things would be even worse. Do you want Congress telling Amazon which video formats they have to use, and which formats the devices they sell must support? When Amazon doesn't want to support some proprietary standard that congress members got bribed to pick then the thugs with guns will turn up at Amazon HQ and Amazon will be unable to defend themselves.
We know that markets are inherently self-correcting, we just need to have patience.
Nobody's asking for regulations here. I think in a digital age, "Product Definition" benefits everybody in the marketplace, and there's no reason we can't come together on that, whether by industry association or legal definition.
No regulators or laws necessary. I simply need to know when I'm buying an "apple" that I get a red thing that's somewhat round and good to eat -- all without spending 3 years studying the nuances of apple law. That's good for everybody because it encourages and supports a free and open market. This is what we want, no?
I'm not asking for a bureaucrat, or an agency. I just want bins in the market where vendors put stuff where I can easily tell what the thing is, that's all.
"Product Definition" benefits everybody in the marketplace
No, it really doesn't: it commoditises the product, which tends to drive down margins. Vendors love lockin and lack of clarity. It benefits the customers. It tends not to happen unless it's enforced in some way. Food is a good example of this: what are you buying when you buy an "organic apple"?
Honest question - if you're not going to regulate or outlaw it, what's going to stop providers from engaging in it? "It" being charging more for / throttling bandwidth for service A and not service B.
I bought an apple and you gave me a squash. What's going to stop that? My taking you to court for damages, that's what. But it won't just be me -- it'll be everybody you ever did business with.
Do you want to face one regulatory agency, where regulatory capture is always present, or do you want to go to court with a million angry customers, perhaps one at a time, that bought one product and were delivered another?
Right - no argument there. I buy X and get Y, that's breech of contract (for demonstrably different/inferior Y).
But I'm asking a slightly different question. I'm operating from a definition of "net neutrality" as "non-discrimination of all kinds of bits flowing through internet wires/beams/tubes." And my question is: what stops VeriComAO&T from selling internet service defined as 2kbps of Netflix and 75gbps of CrapVideo(tm brought to you buy VCA&T)? What guarantees/enforces that kind of net neutrality, if not laws or regulations?
Everybody and their brother wants to lock you in to their platform (whether it's a phone or an ISP) then split, differentiate, and bundle the product in so many complex ways you'll be lucky if you even understand what you're purchasing.
Cell phone companies have already done this. Airlines as well. So have insurance companies. They make money by farming the walled garden in such a way as to make it look like you have increased choices, but, mirabile dictu, all the choices end up with you paying more money each month.
Enough is enough.