This is what a non-neutral net looks like

Gogo, which offers in-flight Wi-fi on a bunch of airlines, is now offering Facebook at no charge — but access to other sites will cost $$.

This violates net neutrality, no? Obviously, certain content is getting special treatment by an ISP, while other content is being blocked unless you pay up.

Am I being facetious? Not really. Discriminatory pricing is generally pro-consumer when you look into it. Different prices for different products usually translates to discounts, not price increases. ISP’s can raise their prices any time, today, so one must assume that they are already charging as much as they can get away with.

My aunt is paying full price for Internet access, somewhere around $50/mo. If she were offered a price of $15, with access only to (say) a dozen sites, she would happily take it, and use that extra $35 to further spoil her grandkids.

But that wouldn’t be neutral.