lagubya

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.

It is like saying, since I am the ISP, providing you broadband, my services have the right to be successful in comparison to others.

And I'll use the money you pay for my privileged services to reduce the price for internet access..

Right. What if Youtube and Hulu start bundling their services as part of Verizon's TV service and thus enjoy higher QoS than other video startups?

Thats a loophole now.

But can't the QoS and prioritization be left to the customer to decide dynamically? If they have too many video streams open, they'll see reduction in quality of all of them. And they can decide to close / pause the ones that are of lower priority. Why should Verizon's TV _always_ be prioritized? Bandwidth and Service are two different things. Everyone is paying for bandwidth. Why also give priority to Verizon's service when Verizon's bandwidth requirements is already subsidized by it's customers?

But will there be people who would hire these people?