| reply to openbox9
Re: When Businesses Combine Together to Deny Consumer Choices Well just what do you consider content. What happens when ISPs decide to promote one companies content via thier best effort traffic shaping over another companies because company [A] reached an agreement with the ISP and company [B] has not. Plus, now you have ISPs endorsing online video content. They can not legitimately argue in favor on caps by signing an agreement with an online video content provider!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by S_engineer:What happens when ISPs decide to promote one companies content via thier best effort traffic shaping over another companies because company [A] reached an agreement with the ISP and company [B] has not. Preferential treatment of like data for reasons as you've highlighted is when net neutrality regulation becomes a necessity. I don't think you'll see that from ISPs for fear of spurring heavy handed government regulation.said by S_engineer:Plus, now you have ISPs endorsing online video content. They can not legitimately argue in favor on caps by signing an agreement with an online video content provider! Why not. Just because an ISP has signed an agreement with a content provider doesn't mean that you as a customer has to visit that site. Save your allotted data transfer for something that you're interested in. |
|
|
|
| But part of the argument that ISPs have used to ration the consumers usage is the influx of online video chews up too much bandwidth. This undercuts every argument that they've used.
What happens if everybody all at once decides to use 360 at the same time on a shared node?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | If they've instituted caps to help control the rampant growth of online video, I'd say that ISPs have nothing to worry about...the caps are already in place  |
|
