3 ms·

I don't think that's clear from how the comment is written. I just realized the presumption embedded in the original question, "Considering both distributional

I don't think that's clear from how the comment is written. I just realized the presumption embedded in the original question, "Considering both distributional effects and changes in efficiency, it is a good idea to let companies that send video or other content to consumers pay more to Internet service providers for the right to send that traffic using faster or higher quality service." It assumes companies paying ISPs to reach consumers is normal. It's not. So even the people asking the question don't understand the subject.

ikeboy 9y ago
It is asking whether paid prioritization should be allowed. Companies usually pay some ISP to send them traffic, maybe not the same ISP as the last mile but "paying more" does seem appropriate wording.
- extra88 9y ago
  > It is asking whether paid prioritization should be allowed. Yes, but they're assuming that some payment is already the norm when it is not. It's like the punchline to the apocryphal story that goes like, "Madam, we've already determined you're a whore, now we're just dickering over the price." The subject at hand has nothing to do with how much companies pay their own ISPs, of course they pay more for using more. This is about whether those companies should also have to pay my ISP if I want to access their content without that content being treated unequally by my ISP.