Net neutrality is not just the fairest way to organise the internet but the most economically effective, according to two US academics. Their economic analysis of the policy claims that it is the best way to encourage investment in online services. Subscribers pay internet service providers (ISPs) for access to whatever …
The power of economics compels you!
So how much of a stretch is it to suppose that by this logic the big music labels are doing the same thing to the creative creators, and therefore there should be rules against the RIAA? Or indeed that copyright in general is actually holding back civilisation from being all it could be, and there should be rules against that, too?
this is teh title
"US. Telecoms companies there have said that they believe that they deserve a share of the revenue earned by businesses which depend on consumers connecting to them over the internet."
Maybe I'm missing something here, I was always under the impression that consumers already pay for the connection they use to access the internet and businesses already pay for their connection, bandwidth, hosting etc.
"Net neutrality has been a controversial subject, particularly in the US. Telecoms companies there have said that they believe that they deserve a share of the revenue earned by businesses which depend on consumers connecting to them over the internet."
as absurd as
"Ballpoint pen manufacturers have said that they believe that they deserve a share of the revenue earned by lawyers which depend on contracts with their customers signed with a ballpoint pen."
"Desk manufacturers have said that they believe that they deserve a share of the revenue earned by any business which depends on computers or papers or other work materials on their desks"
This could go on and on.
That statement is so absurd, it's unbelievable someone really believes that
Why should the BBC pay more for what I download? If I download 1gb a month because I don't do much surfing, charge me X. If I download 80gb a month because I constantly stream iPlayer, then charge me nX. Is it that cocking hard?
If my connection is "unlimited" then I expect to be able to download as much as I bloody well like. That's what "unlimited" means! So don't sell "unlimited" and then moan about people using it!
If I knew the cost-per-mb you can bet that I would be more careful about what I downloaded/used (cue blocking more cruft on websites and running a larger local cache).
@AC 13th January 2010 12:41 GMT
None at all. In fact if you look at early implementations of copyright law, this was explicitly recognized, as was the fact that no copyright at all holds back innovation. They therefore set limited periods of copyright to encourage innovation while at the same time ensuring it eventually became freely (as in beer) available. The problem with copyright laws today are that they have been extended from fixed time periods to unlimited.
Neither neutral nor metered are a panacea.
The problem is the misconception that method of delivery services is a binary decision. In a competitive free market, both would exist and serve different kinds of customers. The important bit, it that those serving the non-prioritized market would not be able to shaft their customers by secretly "de-prioritizing" certain kinds of traffic. As to whether it is the content or consumer who pays for prioritized service where offered, I have no objection to either of them paying it. Somebody has to. There certainly would be benefits to content creators to attract people to their sites if they pay. On the other hand some consumers would benefit if they are large consumers of certain content. I don't even have an objection to both of them paying.
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Ofcom will not probe lesbian lizard snog in new Dr Who series
- Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
- Episode 9 BOFH: The current value of our IT ASSets? Minus eleventy-seven...
- Too slow with that iPhone refresh, Apple: Android is GOBBLING up US mobile market