• http://www.michael-martinez.com/ Michael Martinez

    “But because we all now live in a multi-platform world, there’s a very real chance that should such “paid priority” system take hold it would result in higher prices for consumers”

    ONLY the consumers who actually use those services would be hit by the higher fees, WHEREAS the braindead FCC has now opened the door to raising fees for ALL consumers regardless of whether they use said bandwidth-hogging services.

    This is why Net Neutrality has always been a lie. It is a way for commercial application providers to artificially reduce the costs of their businesses. They are literally taxing ALL consumers to underwrite or subsidize the bandwidth usage of a few consumers.

    Tiered pricing is, in fact, the ONLY way to make the Internet truly neutral and fair to all. Let those who use the bandwidth pay for it and charge their customers rather than force the rest of us to pay for the bandwidth we are not using.

  • Dwayne Rosenfeld

    I really can’t stand these “Net Neutrality” arguments. If Netflix is charged more for its customer base hoging bandwidth that a service provider has invested in, then Netflix can either raise its price or absorb the cost. If Netflix raises its price, aren’t I free to switch to Amazon, Google, Hulu, or the dozen or so other streaming content vendors.

    If I buy an SUV and somebody else buys an Honda, should we complain to the government to force the manufacturers to make sure that there is no difference in the miles per gallon of the vehicles. I could understand the argument if the costs to Netflix were so egregious such that it was impossible for the company to make a margin. However, last time I checked, Netflix was making oodles of money leveraging a distribution cost (the internet) that they are not adequately and equitably being charged for.

  • http://mauricewalshe mauricewalshe

    @Michael Martinez, do you think that tiered pricing would save ISP doing sweetheart deals? (I spent 15 years working for a big telco – trust me on this you realy realy dont want to go there)

    BTW “reasonable” has a specific legal meaning – if your going to comment on this you really should understand the concept of “reasonableness” before commenting on NN.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

    eg it would be reasonable to use reasonable traffic management to stop the Jacks and Emma’s of the world loading up Daddys company laptop with limewire and saturating the contended link, it would be unreasonable to say slow down access to Google to favor Bing or to slow access to the Guardian or The Times – or in extreme cases site like wikileaks.

    the problem is the federal nature of the states stops the FCC from actually regulating properly – compounded by the very poor way in which mobile has been handled.

    @Dwayne bad argument its more like say making a car running badly if you use a different brand of petrol.

  • http://www.michael-martinez.com/ Michael Martinez

    @mauricewalshe What I care about is not having to pay for someone else’s profitability. Trust me, YOU don’t want to go there.

    If you think you DO want to go there, then just send me your address and I’ll start sending all my utility bills to you. You can pay them and I’ll continue using the utilities.