4 ms·
How anyone could side with the ISP here is beyond baffling. They're essentially making the point that if I build a website, spend large portions of my own mone
by breakfastduck 5y ago
How anyone could side with the ISP here is beyond baffling.
They're essentially making the point that if I build a website, spend large portions of my own money hosting it, and it becomes popular, I should also be charged extra by the ISPs of the users who access my site.
We're in clown world at this point.
- EmilioMartinez 5y agoThe lawsuit and court rule are not really about "siding" morally speaking. It's about deciding what money collection scheme to use. You can either charge user for the internet they use, or simply target the really large content providers and split the bill with them leaving the user with fixed charges to worry only about connection stability when choosing an ISP. I'm guessing it was mostly contingency that created a culture where the latter became the status quo, and everyone is rolling with that. This is a long shot from a mom-and-pop website like you describe.