Okay, point granted on rural access, but I think you miss the important part. WE pay for access. WE have a contract for speed delivered. ISPs make deals or charge for access and interconections: the value of their bussiness is the bandwidth.
I dont give a flying fuck if Mary McBrotherFuck up in the Kentucky mountains cant see House of Cards because she doesnt have the bandwidth: if she wants more bandwidth so much, then she should pay for it or move to civilization. I pay for bandwidth, netflix pays for bandwidth. Why in the world would they, or us, have to pay for 'heavyer content' like high resolution video? If the video rate is more than my bandwith, then I cant see it instantly. Period. If I want to see it instantly, then I should pay more and thus, the incentive of the ISP is merely mantaining infrastructure and its growth: a low margin bussiness it is, but a huge profit cow in the long run.
Why in the world should I, or netflix, pay more than our bandwith usage? Because ISPs, on the one hand, FAILED in the projection of bandwidth demand and thus heavyer content eats into their projected profits. On the other, because ISPs are also cable companies, and to them the cable bussiness, which is clearly a content-control racket, is more profitable than a flat internet.
And this is what is in front of us: the 'channelization' of internet content. They want it to be like cable tv.