Sprint just announced that it will offer pay-per-view movies exclusively for its cell phones. for 4-6$ a Sprint customer can watch a film in parts or in its entirety whenever or wherever they want to. Sprint is the first company to offer this innovation and I expect other wireless companies to eventually follow suit.
This is precisely the type of innovation and service that never would have occurred if there was a net neutrality requirement!
Net nutrality proponents: Google, Amazon, Yahoo, eBay, and Microsoft, want to be able to send a customer a movie like Sprint does on a wireless phone, but not have to pay the wireless carrier extra for the transmission becuase the customer supposedly has "already" paid for it. Not so.
This is outrageous! The neutr-elitists have come up with this NN warped-concept of fairness that broadband carriers must give online giants free delivery of their video transmissions. They expect Sprint, which has spent billions of dollars on scarce radio spectrum and even more billions to construct one of the most advanced wireless broadband networks in the country to allow the online giants to use it for free, because the consumer, not them, has supposedly already paid for band width.
The hubris of these freeloaders is breathtaking! With 80-90% gross profit margins, these companies want to distribute video over other companies' broadband networks and they want to do it for FREE! They could have bid at the recent FCC spectrum auction. Google has already said that there are not barriers to constructing WiFi networks.
This is what the NN debate is really about. Will the broadband companies that invest billions in infrastructure and innovate to meet new demand be able to charge for these additional incremental services or is the government going to de facto nationalize these competitive networks with NN legislation, so dotcom billionaire freeloaders can use it for free?
Video downloads like Sprint is offering is hugely bandwidth intensive and expensive to provide. The Internet is not a datatopian socialist commune, a "Socialized-Internet" with one government set pricing scheme for everyone. It is a free and competitive marketplace that is NOT regulated.
Sprint did not invest in spectrum and its network to give it away for free! It took risk, innovated with the expectation that their investment would earn a return. Are the dotcom billionaires going to try and claim that wireless is not a competitive market?
