somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth usage.

  I still can't understand this bandwidth argument.

  If bandwidth is a problem for an ISP, then they should lower their
client's bandwidths. It's that simple. Problem solved.

  If your argument is "people who only read email don't need to access
high-bandwidth websites such as youtube", then the solution is extremely
simple, once again: Lower the user's bandwidth. What is the problem?

  "Selective filtering will allow ISPs to offer cheap connections which
only access low-bandwidth services of the internet". Again: Just offer
very low-bandwidth connections for cheap. Problem solved.

  Bandwidth is a really stupid excuse for trying to pass these directives.

  In fact, bandwith is a really stupid excuse for this whole idea. What
is going to sell better, a connection which you can't use to access the
whole internet with, or one which you can, even if it's a slower connection?

  The fundamental idea behind these directives is not bandwidth, but a
way to circumvent network neutrality. Where the ISPs *will* get money
from is from companies: Companies will have to pay the ISPs in order to
get their services to the "basic packages" of those ISPs.

  Both the companies and the users will suffer from this.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message