"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f12814$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:08:01 -0600, somebody wrote:

> > Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth
> > usage. Why should strict www users subsidize p2p traffic?

> Why not go to the next step, then - why should anyone subsidize anyone
> else's traffic?  Pay by the byte.  Why should I subsidize my neighbors'
> use of Netflix on demand?  I don't use it, and I don't benefit from it.
>
> </sarcasm>

> > to do so. Just like the customer can select *any* ISP (or none, as the
> > case may be).

> In many localities, the customer *can't* select *any* ISP.

Granted, I did not mean that, say, a Germany resident can chose an
Argentinian ISP. I meant one can chose any ISP available in his/her region.

> I have
> friends who live in very rural areas who have one option and one option
> only.  They either pay whatever the provider charges and live with the
> TOC or they go without.

That's true of many things. In very rural areas, there is also a reduced
selection of, say, supermarkets. I'm not sure if that's a good argument for
legislating that the existing supermarket carries all goods or brands.
Before the analogy police arrives, the point is that it's not a good idea to
limit what types of services private enterprise can offer based on
individuals with special circumstances. One can, to an extent, expect that
governments provide basic necessities to very rural areas (within reason,
even for government), but ISPs are private enterprises. Sometimes, even
though you can select any color, the only available one will be black. Such
is life.

Post a reply to this message