This type of regulation is not restrictive?
It doesn't place limits on how companies recoup costs and earn profits?
How is the current system really any different from what cable/satellite companies do with the "packages" they offer?
Does none of that money go towards building and up keep on the networks necessary to bring content to individual subscribers?
Should the individual consumer have to pay for all of the infrastructure alone?
Should low density population areas pay exorbitant cost compared to Urban areas or do without because providers cannot recoup the cost necessary to pay for the infrastructure?
And no, it doesn't cost me anything more. Since I live in a very Rural area, it would actually costs me less than if the few available providers only had such limited means to pay for the very infrastructure necessary to bring any content at all. I say would, because my current provider (only broadband available without going to a satellite company) doesn't restrict or charge companies more so their content can be provided faster. (It wouldn't be effective for them as the market they serve is simply too small for Companies like Netflix, etc to be willing to pay.)