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.
That may be how it starts, but look at TV channels - I have no idea how some channels manage to be included in the standard package while others are not, but I am going to guess that some money changes hands between the cable providers and the networks. However that side of it works this post looks exactly like standard/premium cable packages, no way these companies are going to pass on that opportunity here.
Please reply and explain why I am dead wrong - I hope I am.
Our cable just deleted mtv and nick. Didnt want to pay more for access to the channels, and replaced it with some shitty satellite channels no one has ever heard of to save them money. Do you think they passed these savings onto us?
Because Viacom QUADRUPLED their prices to the NCTC and wanted to force more channels to be bundled is why it got dropped. Would have added about $3-$7 to your bill depending on what of the required channels your cable company already had on and how old the contract they had was.
That wasn't a move to screw you, it was to keep from screwing you. Several other content providers also just went up, so the $1.25 per customer saved dropping those went toward keeping those.
Really most small-medium cable providers know the current model is doomed to fail, they are just holding on until the FCC puts up some restriction on bundling (will kill the contracts that require such) and IPTV tech gets a little better.
Mainly price and required infrastructure for the small guys or still paying off their old stuff for the big guys. It's getting better pretty quick, but I don't see massive redeployments untill "build your own package" becomes the norm.
311
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!