Pros? Cons? Side notes?
"my company can't offer a discount for in house services"
Sure but a lot of what's being targeted isn't stuff that's offered as in-house service. Bit torrent is a great example.
And we're mostly talking about high data media content so far but what's being proposed would apply to anything/everything. For example, the Hobby Lobby or BLM of the ISP world could decide to throttle or block websites with which they don't agree. Fine. Drop them and go to a competitor. Except that, in many markets, there is no competitor. Or there are "competitors" are that just re-sellers of the dominant ISP's access. Or there are genuine competitors but they have similar ideological positions and therefore would block the same sites. It's difficult to get a variety of viewpoints on any given topic (for example, abortion or gun ownership) if your only ISP or all the ISPs in your area block sites like Planned Parenthood or the NRA, etc.
Sure you can. But pick a side.
Bit Torrent is either:
A neutral tool that has legitimate and illegitimate uses just like everything else on the internet
It's a tool for pirating, period.
If it's the former, deal with it accordingly. You don't block Craigslist altogether because some people post ads for stolen goods. Just like you don't ban guns altogether because some people use them to commit crimes.
If it's the latter, you want to charge a premium for it? Isn't that just selling your users a license to use your network to break the law?
"It's what's they do now. All your proposals stifle legitimate business practices viable in any other industry."
I can think of a few industries with similar situations. For example, payola in the case of radio.
Certainly you can but I would say that this falls under false equivalency.
No false equivalency is comparing two things which aren't really comparable.
I tried really hard to come up with a similar scenario in another industry that would be equivalent but couldn't really think of a plausible one.
It's not just about that though Shane. A lot of ISPs are also content providers. (Directly or indirectly.) They want to be able to dissuade you from accessing content that competes with their own. For example, they might want to throttle or charge a premium for data transfer from/to Youtube while giving you unrestricted access to their own video sharing service. It's not really about it costing less for the ISP. (It probably costs them more to run their own video sharing service.) It's about it being potentially more profitable for them (advertising revenue, etc.).
Tiered pricing based on overall data consumption is one thing. I know that, if I watch too many videos, I'll have to pay more. But targeting specific sites, services and content providers is something else IMO.
"Tiered pricing based on data consumption is one thing. I know that, if I watch too many videos, I'll have to pay more. But targeting specific sites, services and content providers is something else IMO."
This exactly. While I understand that I may have to start paying more if I use more data the companies should not be allowed to police the content that I want to consume.
The telecommunications companies can not prevent you from seeing content with which they disagree. For example: Comcast wants Hillary Clinton to win the next presidential election so they only allow you to visit sites supportive of her and critical of her opponents.
The companies cannot decide that people using Netflix are taking up too much bandwidth so they decide that unless Netflix pays them a stipend the will begin throttling video feeds. Comcast already tried to do this but failed: http://fortune.com/2016/07/05/comcast-truce-netflix/
The companies cannot charge you for different types of content like they do on satellite networks. For example: they may charge you 30 dollars per month for basic access. This allows you to visit news sites or something. If you want access to social networks such as Facebook, etc you pay an extra 5 dollars per month. If you want to access media streaming sites that is an extra 10 dollars. Here is a link to an image that demonstrates this and should frighten you if net neutrality is struck down. http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-12-15-net_neutrality_loses_wh...
Nothing comes to mind.
If you are frightened that the media is attempting to silence your position then you should be pro net neutrality. Like my first point said, if you worry that a telecommunications giant like comcast may remove your access to conservative media then you should really be pro net neutrality. Its all fun and games thinking about the potential of censoring stuff we don't like until those in power don't agree with us and want to censor us.