3 ms·
Service tiers make total sense for mail, even under a "neutral" system. Sometimes people need, for example, guaranteed next day delivery. So, if Amazon wants
by fpgaminer 6y ago
Service tiers make total sense for mail, even under a "neutral" system. Sometimes people need, for example, guaranteed next day delivery. So, if Amazon wants to pay extra for that service tier like everyone else ... what's the problem?
The real issue is if Amazon gets that service at a discounted rate. They probably do, and I can see arguments for why we wouldn't want them to be able to. But I can't see arguments against service tiers.
Besides, service tiers exist under net neutrality. I can choose to buy a 1Mbps connection, or a 1Gbps connection. The latter gives me a clear advantage. Yet that's allowed under net neutrality because _anyone_ can buy those tiers of service.
- AmericanChopper 6y agoEvery reason that mail service tiers make sense can be applied to net neutrality too. VOIP, streaming media, multiplayer video games all “need” a much better QoS than say browsing a web page, or downloading a torrent does. Anybody who wishes to compete with Amazon will also have to pay additional fees to offer an equivalent service, and if high QoS delivery channels become over-subscribed, prices for them will increase. Further discriminating against competition. > So, if Amazon wants to pay extra for that service tier like everyone else ... what's the problem? What’s the problem with an ISP creating a seperate QoS tier for people who require it, and charging more for it? It’s exactly the same thing.
- twblalock 6y ago> Every reason that mail service tiers make sense can be applied to net neutrality too. VOIP, streaming media, multiplayer video games all “need” a much better QoS than say browsing a web page, or downloading a torrent does. That's a pretty good argument against net neutrality. It's a bad argument against service tiers for mail.