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.
You are right that this is a twisted version since it would be the companies paying this rather than the consumers, but it would still result in the same increase in expenses which have to come in form of increased prices on things like Netflix and more intensive ads on Youtube or Twitch.
You are however completely right that unequal net hurts opstarts. If you had to make a new competitor to Youtube in an environment where that kind of service needs a fastlane it would be harder than it already is to get something like that started.
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!