> Would net neutrality mean that my ISP could offer only one option on speed? This is not what "net neutrality" is meant to cover. > So, maybe my ISP would w

> Would net neutrality mean that my ISP could offer only one option on speed? This is not what "net neutrality" is meant to cover. > So, maybe my ISP would work with, say, Vimeo and give me good service when I was using Vimeo but not work with YouTube or Netflix and from them, then, give me poor service, largely independent of what option I am buying from my ISP. This is exactly what net neutrality is intended to cover. Although often what is going on is this instead: You buy internet from verizon (just picked them arbitrarily as an example) - they also sell you cable tv at an added cost - both sent over the same wires/fibers. So, verzon is selling you two different services: internet access and cable tv. But, via. your "internet access" service, you can also buy netflix, amazon prime tv, vimeo, hulu+, etc., all of which also see you "cable tv" (of varying different "degrees"). So, verizon actually has a conflict of interest here. On one hand, they are selling you a service (network traffic to the internet) that provides you an ability to buy "cable tv" from someone other than verizon. They (verizon) would naturally prefer you pay them for cable tv than pay someone else, because they receive more income that way. So they (verizon) have a profit incentive to artificially make netflix, amazon prime tv, vimeo, hulu+, etc., appear to be "less capable" or "lower quality" than their own cable tv package, in order to encourage you to buy from them instead of buying from the other guy. That's usually where the "net neutrality" issue really comes up. If the ISP's were only network providers, there would be little incentive on their own part to artificially make one network endpoint look slower/faster/better/worse than another. But because of the consolidations they are no longer just ISP's, they are ISP's plus content providers (the cable tv sides). And that produces the conflicts of interest that result in the motives to prioritize one service over another. And often the incentive is to try to suggest to their customers that their internet pipe can't make a perfectly good cable tv delivery mechanism at the same time. Because if you the customer realize your fast internet pipe can double as a cable tv delivery means, then you also realize you don't need to pay 2x70/month but only need to pay 70/month (also picking 70 at random). So their income would collapse by half overnight if enough customers realized that fact.