Net Neutrality II

I got to thinking after reading more about the FCC's two options under consideration, and I don't think, with respect to money, it doesn't matter which is adopted since the consumer will pay in the end.

I think this because if they create the two-tiered system to the communications networks, one for consumers and one for companies, eg. Netflix, Google, etc., for high speed broadband access, how is such a system going to work?

If Netflix pays for the higher speed delivery system from their servers, the content will eventually end up at the consumer speed network and end users, and unless the end users, the customers, pays for the equally faster service, they won't see anything different.

The difference is the companies' ability to send more content which will eventually bottleneck into the consumer speed network, the Internet we already have, and you can bet the companies aren't going to pay for that speed out of their pocket but with increased customer prices.

In the end the consumers will pay for either system, more broadband service for consumers to accommodate the higher content volume from the companies or more higher speed service for the companies delivering the high volume content.

It's a win-win for the companies, they get to raise prices for both and get more profit for themselves and it's a lose-lose for the consumer who ends up paying the bills for either system. And the members of the FCC gets more money from lobbyists for making the companies richer.

My choice is the FCC designate the Internet a utility and regulate it for everyone, and yes, we'll all pay higher prices for more and higher speed networks, but at least we'll all be able to use it. The FCC needs to force the telecommunications and cable companies to upgrade their network for everyone or face fines for not doing it.