Re: Ah, Californian Wieners
How is it possibly anti-consumer or anti-competitive to guarantee that I can use the bandwidth I'm paying for to consume the services I choose?
There are no guarantees on the Internet. The Internet is a 'network of networks', so I could guarantee something in an SLA where both endpoints are within my network. This bill extends that principle..
On the other hand, I would see it as massively anti-competitive for my ISP to push me towards a content provider they have some paid prioritisation deal with by making competing services perform so badly in comparison that I give up on them. It would be like the parking provider in town making me use only one entry and exit lane and park in the crappy spaces on the 5th floor unless I was going to the supermarket in town that had paid them.
You're getting it. Although replace 'ISP' with say, Google, or Amazon. They're 'Edge' networks, so can't be charged. So say you're on Comcast. It's performing bady due to the cost of connecting to Google's network.. Perhaps you'd consider trying Google fibre instead? If your ISP is national, then it could probably view California as a loss leader, providing the 'Edge' network free-rider problem doesn't end up going national. But if there's no cost contribution from the 'Edge' networks, the only person ISPs will be able to bill would be users.
OK, so the Alphaborg's backed off being an access provider/ISP it seems, but it could change it's mind. And being both an access and an Edge network would mean any access costs due to Edge provision could generate a handy tax loss. And rather than parking, try postage. It's like Amazon saying they should get free USPS delivery everywhere because you've bought a stamp.