Quote:
Originally Posted by Lzen
By analogy, let’s imagine that a retailer furniture company were in a position to offload all their shipping costs to the trucking industry. By government decree, the truckers were not permitted to charge any more or less whether they were shipping one chair or a whole houseful of furniture. Would the furniture sellers favor such a deal? Absolutely. They could call this “furniture neutrality” and fob it off on the public as preventing control of furniture by the shipping industry.
|
Jesus, the amount of misinformation out there is amazing.
I'll just stick with this false analogy.
First, using this analogy, it needs to be pointed out the analogy completely ignored the consumer. So, let's bring them into the picture.
To make internet access comparable to truckers and furniture, we have to point out the consumer is already paying the trucking company to ship the furniture and the trucking company is already charging different rates based on the speed of delivery.
Now, what happened, using this analogy, is the trucking company went to the certain furniture suppliers whom customers liked the most and said "Nice company you have here, be a shame if it took longer for your furniture to reach the customer compared to your competition."
Remember, the customer is already paying the trucking company for delivery, speed, and the ability for the trucking company to ship a truckload of furniture.
What "furniture neutrality" would do is stop trucking companies from charging certain furniture companies access to customers.
It has nothing to do with usage, but equal access. As in, the trucking companies cannot charge different rates to different companies just to access their shipping.