We finally got yesterday's CNBC excerpt posted. You can find the video here (still working on getting a Google Video one posted–check back here soon).
CNBC seemed to base their segment on this Wall Street Journal article, entitled “Consumers could see new web rates: Use More, Pay More”. The problem with both is that they've framed the issue incorrectly–it's just too simplistic. The policy implications of net neutrality are not limited to price structuring–what services consumers can get for their buck. It's about the structure of the Internet: how consumers and businesses access, participate, consume, and provide services on the network.
We've said it many times before, but the network providers want to act as artificial gateways to both a consumer's access to content and services, and a business' access to customers. I say artificial, because one's connection to the Internet is all one ever needed to have access to its entirety. They're acting like we're all not already paying (a lot!) for our Internet connection. The truth is, we all pay (too much?) for our access to the 'net–consumers and businesses alike.
So to simply call this a raise in consumer prices for “new services” is totally missing the point. Right now, a DSL or cable broadband subscription means that you get access to everything–web pages, email, im, voip, and video–all at limited speeds.
Both the CNBC segment and the WSJ article seem to ignore this openness of the Internet, and how fundamental a principle it is to person-to-person communications and developing and conducting business, today.
A pay-as-you-go broadband connection is a radical step backward for consumers and businesses. We all have to make sure that net neutrality is the status-quo for future of broadband–otherwise, why bother subscribing?