I doubt all ISPs are going to follow on that. If only one big player is left with unlimited bandwidth, it would collect all the customers.
Unfortunately the problem here is that most of the infrastructure belongs to Telekom and our regulatory agency allowed Telekom to get higher prices from other providers for lending his lines, mostly with the goal in mind telekom will use that money to invest in a better infrastructure. Above 90% of the internet here is still dsl and so mostly kind of the control of Telekom.
I'm not a fan of Sascha Lobo, but I have to agree with his latest article
about that topic: It's a question of our politics to take care of the net neutrality and take more control of the broadband expansion - if you leave that to the market you can be sure every firm will try to avoid net neutrality for it's own good, especially if one firm still has some monopoly power.
I see a big comeback of the pirate party here. Also the green party will get another updraft, especially since there are similar problems in the electricity market since there are no results in the necessary infrastructure expansion for the quit from the nuclear power while prices are heavily raising.
The biggest ISP in Germany, Deutsche Telekom, has announced that the company is going to introduce traffic limits for ALL future contracts starting on May 2nd. Users, who transfer more data than the specific limit allows, will have their speed lowered to laughable 384 kbit/s. The technical measures to enforce the limits are planned to be introduced in 2016.
This isn't really abandoning net neutrality. It *might* be abandoning what you want net neutrality to be, sure. I do real networking for a living, backbone routers and core switching and stuff, plus I'm not from the EU where broadband is considered a utility, so maybe you can't agree with this, on principle, but I don't think anyone in the industry would call this (as reported in the article you linked) an attack on NN. Here's why:
1) NN basically asserts that you need to treat all traffic equally based on type, regardless of source. There's nothing about unlimited throughput in NN. And there's nothing in your link that suggests preferential treatment of *Internet data*.
2) The division of Internet from Intranet is something you *must* understand. If you have to leave your ISPs intranet for information, they have to pay for it. If it's locally proxied or cached, though, all they need is some RF space to push it to you, and copper and fiber carry a wide, wide spectrum of RF. So for their in-house TV service, they don't count that throughput against your monthly total because it's not traffic of the same*type* as other streaming video you might access.
3) There exists a vocal, ignorant minority (typically legal experts with no technical knowledge) who believe that NN must be FIFO without QoS. The Internet cannot work like that. It would be nice if it could. It can't.
Plus, do I read that right? Planning on allowing possibly up to 400gig a month before caps? You just can't need that much data month to month. How?
Of course it's against net neutrality, limiting the traffic to other services at a minimum and offering it's own similar services without a traffic limit. Beside telephone and internet Telekom offers other services like TV, movie renting and has a special deal with spotify.
Edit: Changed some lines for better understanding.