As one who does a LOT of work that demands fast internet, I have been following its regulation--or lack thereof--for awhile now. There are arguments for both sides, though the claims that in the past there was no regulation and the internet grew fine, that is true, but the possibility of "controlling" how content is made available was still very nascent. That is no longer the case.
With the consolidation of cable companies and cell companies, the possibility of having different options is getting harder and harder, i.e., one may not have a lot of choices on how much they have to pay for fast internet? On the other hand, a lot of people may find they don't need all the bells and whistles, and be happy with paying less for less. Or we might find different ways of providing internet content? I have no real answers, who knows?
That said, I could see something like what I read this morning happening for sure. I was looking for a cheap golf course in Vegas. I like to play but I more or less suck. And dude, some of the places here are like $400 a round!! Uh, yeah. So I did a search and found this site--which I will link down below for reference--that had the following statement:
"Consider this: Golfers could play one round at each of the following three courses -- Chimera Golf Club and Black Mountain Golf & Country Club in Henderson and Painted Desert Golf Club in Las Vegas -- and still spend less than one round at Shadow Creek. That's Las Vegas golf economics at work, the same business model that the casinos employ. Penny slots or high-stakes poker? It's your choice".
That got me thinking about how that might apply to how content is provided over the new free will zone of internet providing. Just a random thought on Hump Day.
Golf Adviser: https://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/las-vegas-golf-3-budgets-14298.htm