By allowing variable costing based on resources and demands, we actually can optimize total resource allocation and ROI better than current fixed price unlimited use network billing.

To set up the commentary, let’s establish these principles:
* as you say, wireless spectrum is a fixed resource. Once you acquire it, bandwidth is limited by coding principles and protocols
* Towers and NIMBY (not in my backyard) – in order to get greater throughput, spectrum reuse is needed (i.e. cell splits for us in the industry) and as local regulations become more onerous, tower camo and the NIMBY effect, enhancing capacity becomes more difficult, hence the rise in femoto’s
* Compared to the wireline world, fiber bandwidth, when compared to wireless, is a non-topic of discussion. Adding a 2nd wave using wave division multiplexing to a cable pedestal or DSLAM, not a trivial expense by any means, but, greatly enhances capacity at a lower expense.
* Further, acquiring or deploying more spectrum in a existing fiber does not require governmental interaction or licensing.

I agree with “wirelessly tethered” that in new spectrum blocks, newer regulations could be imposed due to newer business models that are constructed when considering to bid a block and build a network.

However, existing deployments should be free to compete amongst themselves unencumbered by neutral regulations. If the customer finds them not palatable, by all means, pick a new carrier or new wireless service offering. Unless government is willing to make concessions on backhaul tariffs and local tower approval processes (which won’t happen), but would easily allow carriers to expand capacity, imposing net neutrality regulations, will create, by definition, a regulated service offering, which, will result in increased prices to the end consumer and lower product innovation. History has shown, with wireline, under regulations, complacency in technology innovation / deployment becomes the norm (ISDN was extremely expensive to the consumer; xDSL- think HDSL – sat on the shelves for years, before ADSL was deployed and xDSL deployments did not take off until they were deemed deregulated to compete against cable co’s).

If I, as a carrier, know I must be neutral, then I begin to look for ways to provide the least amount of service at the lowest cost possible. Then, I begin to look outside my window, to merge with another provider, to lower my cost, my backhaul expense (via volume purchase agreements), base station expense (through standardization) and viola, a duopoly is born. And under this scenario, a gentlemen’s agreement between the two carriers, nod nod, wink wink, don’t rock the boat in lowering prices and I won’t either. (we are starting to see this again with airlines under consolidation – think of all those new fees you have).

I don’t believe carriers would be so bold as to bill YouTube for disproportionate traffic usage, as it would surely create dereg suicide, but heck I have been wrong before. Further, I do believe wireless carriers will have to raise the “unlimited” 5Gig cap in the next couple of years, based on the trends I have seen. Let’s keep in mind, that with the accession of exclusive devices (G1, iPhone, Palm) these OEMs are picking the carrier that offers the best business model and are, in a perverse nature, forcing a limited amount of neutrality in their carrier of choice, so long as an exclusivity agreement exists. When the device is available, absent exclusivity, the best carrier wins…Think iPhone on a CDMA network…
Best,
Brian