The problem isn't you offering that service, it's Verizon offering that service and being the only game in town. If we had real competition, network neutrality would be a non-issue because the market would punish violators. But we don't.

Then why not use antitrust and other policies to create actual competition where it's missing? As the 'backdoor' meetings of Google and Verizon hosted by the FCC show, federal rulemaking just cements the power of incumbents who can send planeloads of lawyers and lobbyists to DC.

If lack of competition is the problem, address that, don't try to simulate competition via slow, often braindead, eventually-twisted-against-upstarts regulation.

It can create chilling effects that work to inhibit free speech and put the Internet under the control of ESPN, YouTube, and the other people who subsidize your service.

A theoretical risk of chilling speech is enough to ban a service that could bring high-speed internet connectivity to underserved communities?

Free weekly newspapers exist in most major cities. They are -- gasp! -- entirely advertising-supported. That money could chill speech! It could drive small operators who can't afford to advertise out of business! Perhaps we should ban that dangerous business model.

And yet, those weeklies present a lot of interesting commentary. And help a lot of businesses thrive. Turns out, the payola pays for a lot of community benefit.

There's a lot of fearmongering going on about how small changes in the internet delivery/pricing model will destroy everything good about the internet. That's irrational paranoia.

The internet will survive whatever conspiracies Verizon, AT&T, Disney, and Google dream up -- as long as their backroom strategizing isn't carved into federal law via regulatory capture.

And if the incumbents manage to shake down customers for a few more dollars -- that will incent the creation of the next generation of route-around communication technologies.

I won't argue your actual point, but your examples about free newspapers is wrong.

There is much evidence that newspapers because newspapers are heavily dependent on their revenue from advertisement (around 70%-80%), advertisements have a lot of power over them.

Examples are when CBS could not broadcast a documentary on the environmental damages done by large industries (we are talking a few decades ago), or when newspapers did not report many of the evidence on tobacco's damage. In Italy Berlusconi even went as far as asking his industry friends to stop advertising in the newspapers who wrote stories against the government in an attempt to shut opposition.

So there's ample evidence that the strong dependence on advertisement has damaged free speech.

Until the Internet came along though, there was no alternative. As you point out without advertisements' revenues free newspapers would not exist. That is because printing newspapers and broadcasting tv shows is very capital intensive. But the Internet is making publishing costs very low, and hence letting everyone have a word (as shown by blogs or comment boxes such as this).

You've confirmed my point; yes, advertiser payments can and do influence speech and competition via free newspapers. But it would be insane to say that because of that influence, we should ban the entire business model.

Yet that's what net neutrality advocates like inklesspen above are saying we should do to network providers. They want subsidized-service models like I proposed banned, simply because it could lead to some 'chilled' speech and corporate influence.

Speech and the internet are tougher than that; they don't need 5 political-party-hack lawyer-appointees in DC -- aka the FCC -- to protect them (when there's time between handing out broadcast-indecency fines).

There is no cap on advertising bandwidth. You can advertise on your on body and walk around the town. But bandwidth is limited and prioritizing one over the other isn't a "open system".

And the traditional businesses of course aren't "open".. hence the much higher barrier to entry and success than on internet.

For the next 20-30 years, your "512 anywhere" will remain at 512Kbps since they don't give you money. And your select sites would be getting 100 Mbps since you put all your resources to where money is..

Hence these few companies would have lockin on infrastructure critical for future innovations like Virtual reality, 3D games, High def videos etc.,

And so the internet would not be open anymore. And so it wouldn't be called internet.

That's quite some crystal ball you have there! If the internet were that fragile, it would have lost to Compuserve and Prodigy. Do you remember them?

Instead, just like pay-for-placement helped pay for city daily newspapers, free-over-the-air radio and TV, and storefront bookstores, pay-for-priority on the internet could subsidize new last-mile capacity and services. But based on concocted nightmare scenarios, net-neutrality regulators want to preclude all experimentation into such models.