Quote:
Originally Posted by elysiantraveller
Because the ultimate issue here isn't how much it costs. I've made this clear multiple times. I keep saying Data is Data because it doesn't matter if I use 20 gigs on this forum or 20 gigs on Netflix. To the ISP it makes absolutely ZERO difference.
Sure I'll use more bandwidth streaming but we also determine our speed when selecting our high speed package. Again it makes absolutely ZERO difference to them.
But now they can choose to charge you more or less depending not on speed or data but how you use it. This is simply a way for telecoms to charge more, filter our options, and harass content providers they feel they compete with. It does not make the market freer in fact it's the opposite.
Like my example to JR it's like going to buy ammo and having to pay different prices for how you plan to use it. Or having to pay more for a truck because you don't actually plan on pulling a trailer with it... it's much more similar to that than a supply/demand curve.
As far as free speech sorry but there are ****ing nutso's on both ends of the spectrum on the internet. It has nothing to do with that and speech on the internet is MUCH freer than it is in everyday America. Pointblankperiod.
|
The bottom line is that ever increasing amounts of data are being streamed. Someone has to pay for the increasing investments in capacity, new technology, maintenance, and workers to accomplish that.
1. If Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Google/Youtube, Pornhub and the other tech/content companies get their way, consumers will wind up with higher bills for their internet access and/or competition will be stifled because no one new will want to make investments when they can't recover their costs.
Various models of charging consumers are possible based on usage, but on average we will have higher bills and/or less competition.
2. If the content companies lose and access companies win, then people's access bills can theoretically remain the same (all else being equal), but people will probably have to start paying fees for things like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Pornhub etc.. because those companies are going to get charged for all the capacity they are using. They will then try to recover those fees.
There is no free lunch. At the end of the day, IMO, we are just arguing over who consumers are going to pay.
As far as slowing down competitor service goes, if they do that, people will complain and start changing service providers. It will also just reopen the political debate and probably be self destructive. That what the FCC is there for.
Personally, I'd rather go back to the way things were. If I'm a heavy data user from a particular content company (let's call it HorseHub lol), I'll pay them. If not, I'm good.
I don't see why content companies should get a free lunch when their content is clogging up all the pipes and is a major cost to others. They are using someone else's infrastructure as part of their business model. They should pay some fair amount of the costs.
I agree there are nutsos on all sides so the political spectrum. I am being critical of the free speech claim because only one side's nutsos are getting their accounts suspended. In a true free speech environment, it's pretty much a free for all unless someone says something criminal. To avoid speech you personally find distasteful, there are mute and block options.
To selectively suspend only some views is censorship.
I think I need more 
