My worry isn't that service providers are finding ways to package and sell limited internet access, and that this violates net neutrality. Ideally I wish there

My worry isn't that service providers are finding ways to package and sell limited internet access, and that this violates net neutrality. Ideally I wish there were something preventing this, but if you're paying only for Facebook access, you know what you're getting, and it's just not the same as paying for a standard broadband connection. My worry is that, if the majority of consumers start paying to access only the sites they care about, we'll end up in a situation where the Internet looks more like broadcast media than like the world wide web. Imagine if the barrier to entry for creating a website were such that you had to negotiate with content and service providers to get your site featured in the right packages. Looking to start up a new e-commerce site? Get included in Comcast's "shopping channel" package. Want to start a sports commentary blog? Make sure you're in AT&T's "unlimited sports" package or you'll be missing out on your biggest traffic source. My fear is that the majority of consumers won't really notice a difference, at least not right away. They'll be able to get access to all their usual websites, and if it comes at a heavy discount from the full "Internet" package, they won't really get upset if they can't access a particular website. Especially if every service already comes with the top 500-1,000 websites in their language. My mom definitely wouldn't notice any difference, and many of my less techy friends might not either. So if you left it up to the consumer, you might end up right back where you started with pre-packaged TV subscriptions, leaving the majority of the long-tail Internet to stagnate.