3 ms·

Nope that's not a mistaken understanding on my part at all. Obviously you pay for what you use. but say a start-up starts blowing up and in the way of things

Nope that's not a mistaken understanding on my part at all. Obviously you pay for what you use. but say a start-up starts blowing up and in the way of things isn't making money yet (as many early stage start-ups don't) If their niche happens to be a bandwidth heavy one the ISPs can and probably will start levying charges on them as they grow, which the start-up will be in a poor position to pay. and that doesn't even touch on the possibly anti-competitive aspect. Say an ISP has a competing service, do you really think they won't try to throttle start-ups in that area using bandwidth charging? Given that US ISPs already have a record of doing exactly that.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
First of all, Google and Netflix together are around 80% of all bandwidth use. The amount of cost on them is so insurmountably higher, by the time anyone could ever rival their bills, they would be in a better position to pay it. And it doesn't have to touch on the anti-competitive aspect: The FCC is not an antitrust regulator. The FTC is. And revoking Title II places ISPs back under the FTC's purview. Anticompetitive behavior should be addressed by the agency charged with ensuring competition.