4 ms·
http://gizmodo.com/the-secret-deals-that-mean-you-have-to-wait-for-youtube-947766871/amp http://gizmodo.com/the-secret-deals-that-mean-you-have-to-wa... The big
by seanp2k2 9y ago
http://gizmodo.com/the-secret-deals-that-mean-you-have-to-wait-for-youtube-947766871/amp http://gizmodo.com/the-secret-deals-that-mean-you-have-to-wa... The big fish already do pay because ISPs hold their customers hostage. They've "opened new revenue channels" by realizing that they can just pay a small amount for lobbying efforts so FCC and friends will leave them alone to make a larger amount from content sources.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- benlorenzetti 9y agoThanks for finding this. This is exactly the point, we can reduce lobbying corruption by scrapping such economics-defying rules. This is completely orthogonal to real anti-trust legislation against the hardwired ISPs, which both parties seem to be incapable of. Net Neutrality didn't officially exist for the first 3 decades of the Internet; I never thought making it official policy fixed a big enough problem to make it worth the cost. A lot of data volume coming out of Google and Facebook are profitable ad images we didn't specifically request. Why shouldn't our ISPs be able charge them for this data? End user bills could fall as low as $0! But the mechanism for doing so has to be blunt and "discriminatory": you can't realistically tell what percentage of data from a domain is of a particular type nor can you keep track of, and contact, every tiny data serving domain out there.