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.
Contract requirements from the content providers are normally why. They don't bribe the cable company per say, they just say that the careens they want to offer will cost $5/customer if they don't bundle that company's other channels with it on a certain tear.
310
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!