Quote:
Originally Posted by otipoby
What the graphic above does not show is what the net-limited plan costs. I pay about $22 bucks a month. If the net-limited plan was $5 for no video sites (heavy bandwidth), that might be interesting.
|
It wouldn't be "no video sites." It would be "you can go to CNN and Disney and ..." Basically they would create bundles of allowed content providers and would most certainly get kickbacks from those providers. The "no video sites" option already effectively exists by way of bandwidth-limited (speed or quantity) accounts. These would actually still be perfectly acceptable under net-neutrality laws. What they WON'T be able to do is packet-sniff and block/throttle certain TYPES of content (say Skype or BitTorrent) or restrict access to specific destinations (like pornsite.com or competitor.com). That type of control is only acceptable in Iran and China.
Quote:
|
I say, let the market decide. Remember, AOL didn't do so hot the first time around when people got a taste of the full internet.
|
I agree, EXCEPT for the realities of Internet access. Cable companies are currently the only viable providers of affordable, high-bandwidth Internet. They are, in most places, just like the power company in their control and are quasi-monopolies. They are granted access to markets by the government at the exclusion of competitors. Plus, the startup costs for competitors form a real barrier to entry. It is NOT a free market. Consumers are not on equal standing with the providers. Even if there are two or three viable alternatives, conditions are ripe for collusion. Any economist will tell you that this type of situation almost always requires regulation.
Once there are real, plentiful alternatives, then these types of regulations can be relaxed. Until then, PLEASE give me net neutrality and maybe even pricing restrictions.