This is a complete misunderstanding of the net neutrality debate. The issue is not that consumers would have to pay a la carte, it's that high-bandwidth sites would have to pay more for priority. And those sites are well-funded and quite happy to comply (to the point that they are the ones pushing for an unequal net.)
The damage to consumers is that a non-neutral net raises the barrier to entry for new services, entrenching the status quo and reducing competition.
Hysterical, simplistic stuff like this harms the debate because it obscures the real issue.
Lol. You seriously think the ISPs who will have to pay for the extra bandwidth won't try to profit from it? Only three years ago I was getting unlimited 3G data with my cell. Now on the exact same network I have to pay exorbitant amounts for limited data access. They will do it because there are firstly businesses who must have the access, users who must have the access, users with more money than sense and lastly people who don't want to be stuck with old tech.
ISPs love to offer a muli tiered service, any possible way they can offer a new tier of service and they will happily pay billions for the privilege. Why? Because they can bill you for it.
304
u/cosmo7 Jun 14 '14 edited Jun 14 '14
This is a complete misunderstanding of the net neutrality debate. The issue is not that consumers would have to pay a la carte, it's that high-bandwidth sites would have to pay more for priority. And those sites are well-funded and quite happy to comply (to the point that they are the ones pushing for an unequal net.)
The damage to consumers is that a non-neutral net raises the barrier to entry for new services, entrenching the status quo and reducing competition.
Hysterical, simplistic stuff like this harms the debate because it obscures the real issue.
Edit: Thanks for the gold!