somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> > I 100% understand that. But for the third time you haven't answered the
> > question. What's the benefit that comes from allowing ISPs to refuse to
> > deliver certain kinds of content, or content from certain providers of
> > information that are otherwise legal?

> Actually, I don't know. It's like asking what's the benefit of allowing
> portable audio devices that pick up FM but not AM to be manufactured and
> sold.

  I don't think that comparison is valid. Supporting both FM and AM radio
requires additional circuitry and hardware. In other words, supporting only
eg. FM and not AM means that there is less circuitry needed, the user
interface of the radio becomes simpler, etc.

  In this case it's not a question of the ISP hardware or software becoming
more complicated/expensive if they support two information providers (which
are equivalent to each other in the amount of content), but the opposite:
Providing both is simpler and less expensive than building a filtering
logic which would filter one but not the other.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message