Network neutrality means that the network transit is neutral, endpoints such as Google are free to do as they wish. For example Google already blocks youtube videos based on ip address geo region.

But I agree that it wouldn't work because the ISP monopolies are more entrenched than the web service monopolies.

> this proposal is antithetical to the concept of network neutrality

Exactly the point I'm trying to make. If Google turns around and says "Fine, you don't like net neutrality? Let me show you how this works both ways".

The ISPs do not make the product, they sell the access to the product. If the product goes away, then they aren't selling anything at all- and their customers will stop paying them.

You talk like customers actually have a choice in ISP...

There's always a choice. Suppose your ISP started charging you $10,000 per month for the service you have now? Would you pay it? Could you? No, you'd probably just go without home service, or rely on your cellular data plan, or get dialup, or just take an internet sabbatical until the ISP cleaned up their act.

For some people, their tolerance for bullshit is less than others. For those people, perhaps charging a dollar extra for YouTube access is enough. It only takes a fairly small percentage of customers to put a lot of pressure on service providers. Monopoly or not.

That's a poor way of trying to weasel out of the actual definition of monopoly, which is defined as "a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service"[0].

What you're describing is a substitute good. When the "choice" is to not purchase said product/service and look to alternatives, you're literally describing the effect of a monopoly.

[0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly

I'm not trying to weasel out of anything. Of course they're monopolies.

My point is simply that a monopoly isn't some sort of God-emperor who can do anything without consequence. Even monopolies have to bow to customer pressure, they're just less sensitive to it than companies in more competitive industries. Supply and demand applies to monopolies, too, that's why their prices might be higher than they would be in a competitive environment, but their prices aren't infinite. "Going without" is always a choice, even if there are no competitors.

We're talking about reasonably priced broadband services, no need to be pedantic or literal.

You can always put money on the lottery several times, win, buy your own satellite and have your own DTH service. Or kill yourself, so that you no longer need internet.

So no, there isn't always a choice in broadband service. And most times, there isn't a choice at all.

The idea that people should be willing to go without Internet, and if they don't they clearly don't care enough is self defeating and silly.

Umm there is always a choice as to wether or not you want to use a good or a service.

Yep, most places I've lived, I've only ever had 1 option (unless I want to pay for satellite internet lol)

IMO the reason Google doesn't do much here is that they are in a very good spot here. They are not in any danger, and if anything ISPs would probably pay them to provide their service.

So I doubt Google would ever do anything at this point.

Of course it is

If ISPs don't see the point in it then they can't complain when other don't follow it (and they get the shaft)

> To state the obvious, this proposal is antithetical to the concept of network neutrality.

the culture employs special circumstances when the situation exceeds the moral capacity of contact.

or to put it differently, sometimes outside forces are so strong that you either let your ethics... be flexible for while or just disappear in the annals of history.

whether OP's particular action would be effective is a different question - bing, ddg or baidu would gladly jump at the opportunity if this wasn't coordinated.

Therin lie dragons

That's how you start thinking it's okay to drop napalm and nuclear bombs on cities since "it'll end the war faster"

I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare net neutrality to a total war, regardless of the comparison made.

Anyone who doesn't subscribe absolutely to radical honesty or to a morality handed down by an all powerful being has to make these kinds of decisions in their personal life all the time and rarely do those decisions have as much impact as net neutrality. Large companies are made up of people and they shouldn't get a pass when they stand by and watch as when the very foundations of their industries are destroyed by extreme rent seeking just because they have shareholders to answer to, most of whom are in a far better position than the employees of the companies to jump ship when their investments don't behave like they'd like them to.

But that is OK if it does end the war faster, where "end the war faster" is understood to mean "millions fewer people will die"

yes. i've never said i think it's fine, it's just (to me) obvious that it's how some people think and how the world works due to the fact some of those people were given power to rule, or took it themselves.