I'd be ok with it too if it meant that Granny paid very little, but I think that we'll see Granny paying the same amount she currently is while everyone else gets to pay out the ass without being able to turn to alternate ISPs. It's not like this is really going to lower anyone's monthly fees, even Granny's; it's just an excuse to charge more. I would love to be proven wrong, but that's just not the business model these creeps run.
Even more than the inevitable cash grab, I'd be worried that this kind of payment scheme would lead to a lack of investment in upgraded infrastructure. If people get charged per bit, they will use less. Less demand leads to less upgrading of lines, and the people who do actually need massive data throughput, for stuff like, for example, off-site redundant systems, can't actually get what they need at all. People will always get charged for what they want compared to what the average is, no matter how much it would cost to upgrade everyone to that level. As an example of that: about 5 years ago a customer was paying â1k a month for a fast (for here) no contention line. Now you can get the same speed with 5:1 contention for about â30 a month.