a) Raise their prices considerably on all their "unlimited" plans--sucks for the light users, who are basically subsidizing the heavy users who want to stream HD video and movies
b) Covertly start throttling back heavy users--sucks for everyone, since no one even knows how much they're being throttled and there is no option of paying a premium to escape it
c) Set download caps--sucks compared to the "free ride" heavy users are getting now, but at least it's out in the open with no throttling bullshit (and light users don't get penalized).
d) Everything stays priced the same as now, without throttling or download caps
Want to see what the future will be like with the proposed capping system? Step right up folks, and take a look at Australia's largest ISP. You get to pick from unbeatable offers such as US$28.85 for 200MB, and US$93.86/month for 60GB! Want more than 60GB? No problem. For the low cost of just US$110.94 per additional gigabyte, you can download to your heart's content! Oh, what was that? You want to watch online video? Don't worry. As part of this attractive offer, you will also have exclusive unmetered access to our partner network of music, movies, sports, games, and more! Getting excited yet? Seriously though fellas, those were not typos and this is not a joke.
Out of every Slashdot article I have seen in the past year, no single controversy has posed anywhere near this of a threat to rights online or free and open source software; and we've got an almost inconceivable "+5, Insightful" first post that effectively sympathizes with the offenders. At least take a moment to research before rushing to Time Warner's defense. Believe you me, if they are given an inch on this one, they (and all U.S. ISPs) will take a mile.
"Why does this really matter? ISPs in other countries are doing it, and businesses should be allowed to maximize their profit," you might say. Well, for starters, internet access has become a vital lifeline that is second-to-none. It has superseded all other forms of communication and media. Restrictive bandwidth policies do nothing more than perpetuate the digital divide by putting financial strain on the people who are already on the brink. This means that when Johnny's parents have home (telephone, or) cable service with a major U.S. company that offers package deals, they will likely opt to conservatively use one of the most inexpensive service plans. At this point, experimenting with things as simple as Ubuntu and Folding@Home become impractical or impossible for Johnny, unless he really wants to go out on a limb by asking for permission.
As of 2008, 5 ISPs control 56% of the U.S. market share. This means that half of the country will be coerced into using the unmetered media networks offered by their provider. What happened to the vision of net neutrality?
Here's the bottom line: if Japan and South Korea can figure out a way to provide blazing speeds at a low cost, then so can the United States.
P.S. For those opposed to the proposals, please contact your elected officials, or request that it be done on your behalf.
In every hierarchy the cream rises until it sours. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter