said by Linklist:Who is talking about P2P Tk? They specifically mention GOOGLE who most definitely does NOT use P2P to deliver video. If Google has to pay for a straw that is big enough for all the little ISP straws to suck through, why should they have to pay more? said by me1212:
Who is "they" the ISP or sites like google? If google use more than it pays for I think they should pay more. If they don't use more than the y pay for they should not pay more. Am I the only one who thinks like this?
This particular question arises here over and over at BBR. Yes, video content providers(especially P2P sites), pay for their connection to the internet and the data they move. But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end.
Now that model does keep costs low at the content provider end. But it generates very high costs at the ISP end of the connection. So costs at the ISP end will rise as more and more users start watching video(especially using P2P delivery mechanisms). Someone has to pay for the increased costs at the ISP end. It will be you directly thru higher monthly flat charges or thru bill-by-byte tiers. Or indirectly thru fees levied on content providers who then use advertising models to pay more at their end. And, of course, advertisers mean higher costs for all the goods people buy that are being advertised.
So, in the end, you will pay more for all this new video growth occurring on the internet. The big question is HOW you will pay for it, directly or indirectly, as shown above. As for me, I prefer that ISPs move to a bill-by-byte tier system. I watch very, very little video thru an internet connection and would love to see my costs contained. And for those who are downloading hundreds of videos online, their costs should rise in my opinion.