Alright, if you don't care about billing and only how traffic is treated/shaped, how about you sign up for BiasNetISP. Where the BASIC plan is dirt cheap and affordable to all. But it restricts access to only a handful of websites: Facebook, Foxnews, Google, ESPN360, and the homepage of the church of the latter day saints. It also restricts any other Internet traffic other than web access. Shell out another $20/mo for Netflix traffic on their PREMIUM service. But hey! They pay lip-service to network neutrality and if you pay an extra $10K a year for ULTIMATE service, you get full unrestricted Internet access.
Long story short, traffic is restricted for some of their customers. That IS affecting how traffic is being treated in a very non-neutral "We get to decide where traffic goes" sort of way. Once the gatekeepers try and control what roads you use, they can abuse that power to squeeze money out of you.
You completed turned around my point. I don't want traffic shaped or blocked. But if someone is going to get unmetered access to a certain service, I don't really care.
You're falling for the "zero rating" marketing spin.
Imagine a health insurance plan where everybody pays $50, but fat people have to pay $10 extra.
Reaction: WTF?!!? That's not fair! You can't do that!!!
So they re-imagine the health insurance plan where everybody pays $60, but "health conscious" people can get a $10 discount.
Reaction: That's cool, sure wish I went to the gym more
GP is saying these are the same damn thing, it's just that they have different marketing spins.
You are eating cheetos, saying that the second plan is just fine, because it doesn't affect you.
But their rates didn't change for AT&T and T-moble. So what's the problem?