On June 26, 2018 at 08:48, thecapnredfish said...
I’m going to say it is a good idea. For many reasons. Maybe I am wrong. The infrastructure the internet runs on must be maintained and serviced by someone. Television is also run along that same infrastructure. With so many cord cutters and younger people never signing up for tv, these companies must make up lost revenue to maintain this infrastructure and make a profit. Why should huge businesses make billions free of any charge to deliver it. That’s like amazon not having to pay Fedex, UPS or the USPS. Or Walmart trucks getting tax free fuel and three lanes of a highway all to themselves.
I suppose it we be more fair to charge heavy users like Netflix, but it’s easier to charge consumers.
Thoughts? Makes most of you mad at the thought of having to pay for something doesn’t it? Things change.
The ISPs are already massively profitable AND largely operate w/ gov-granted monopoly powers. Paid prioritization is just rent-seeking.
You pay Netflix/etc for the content. You pay your ISP for access to that content. Netflix/etc pay for their network service AND help the ISPs via peering or co-locating to localize content...everybody is getting paid (except the consumer).
[Link: openconnect.netflix.com]Not sure how you do the mental gymnastics to think AT&T, Verizon, Comcast etc have the virtuous argument. They also argue they should be able to store records of all of your traffic and further monetize it. And call data-capped plans 'unlimited' with a straight face.
It doesn't really matter, w/ direction of recent federal anti-trust decisions, we'll all be paying a handful of monolithic corp's for everything anyway.
