3 ms·
No not really. It cost something to host the pipe to customer, customer should bear this cost. And then it also cost something to allow access and utilization o
by Ekaros 3y ago
No not really. It cost something to host the pipe to customer, customer should bear this cost. And then it also cost something to allow access and utilization of ISP network. Reasonably this should be paid by whoever sends the data. If the sender owns a network they could negotiate peering contract where data send to each other is offset and then after some period either one pays to either.
Would be entirely logical and sensible model.
- specialist 3y agoWho pays to ship a physical package? Sender, receiver, or both?
- Ekaros 3y agoSender, and receiver pays them to pay that. So in this scenario the users of Twitch should pay for the sender to be able to send data. I see no reason why Twitch would not be charging for using their service in this scenario. And then viewer can pay for it.
- specialist 3y agoThe next logical step: customer gets free ISP. The complaint is that ISPs are charging both sides. Hence the pro "net neutrality" position. (Aside: "Net neutrality" is a terrible phrase. Obscures rather than illuminates the policy debate.)