To Be Neutral, or Not To Be Neutral

I know it is seen as 'equitable' and 'fair' to be in favor of net neutrality, which would regulate internet companies to prevent any kind of two-tiered pricing.

Well tell me a market that does not have tiered pricing.  Does your cable company charge the same for 'basic cable' as for 'premium multi-lingual sports intense cable'?   Does your satellite company?  Despite the fact that the same bits are probably flowing over the same pipes, and clever software throttles what channels you can actually watch.

Even my water bill reflects tiered pricing.  A basic rate for a certain threshold of 'basic' service, then a higher rate for usage beyond that - to keep those zinnias looking colorful, and my chard from wilting and parching.  Oh and the blueberries growing over the season.

Gasoline - tiered pricing.  Food - tiered pricing (I like cheap cuts of meat, still trying to follow my historical $4 per meal per package), so when my husband asks me, as he did tonight - what kind of meat is this?  Um, meat - you know, maybe chuck steak or something?  With a clever recipe like Beef Provencale, you can get by with cheap cuts.  Would he notice if I fed him a strip steak?

So I have to think twice before I go along with every other blue Oregon bubble voter on this thing.  We have all been lucky, I am lucky at this very moment, with internet service available to me.  Not free.  Should people who consume bandwidth for streaming games and movies pay more?  Maybe I am old fashioned, but I pay for streaming internet service from XM.

If companies can't charge more for premium service, but all firms are mandated to abide by the same regulatory pricing scheme - how will this incentivize any firm to offer new services?  Their pricing strategy is already going to be fixed.  So lets take a rational policy view about this.