4 ms·
My thoughts exactly. This is one part favouritism and the other part double-dipping (a.k.a greed). Another metaphor adding onto your example is the local or sta
by DigitalSea 12y ago
My thoughts exactly. This is one part favouritism and the other part double-dipping (a.k.a greed). Another metaphor adding onto your example is the local or state Government charging individual car manufacturers to use certain public roads like highways.
"We've determined more Fords drive on this particular than any other brand of car, pay up or Ford vehicles will be intentionally limited or cut off from using this road" — Users (or in this example motorists) have already paid the appropriate entities; car registration, licence fees and insurance, now the road authority wants a cut from every car manufacturer because they're responsible for the roads being used.
When you put it all into perspective with those metaphors, it really highlights how damaging and ridiculous anti-net neutrality laws could be for the Internet.
- eftpotrm 12y agoThe other thing Comcast don't seen to have realised is that they're making a long term bet they'll be bigger than Netflix with this strategy. If they're not, what's to stop Netflix saying a major reason the subscribers are buying Comcast's service is to access them, so why should Comcast keep all the subscription? It's no less logical. Not a bet I'd want to make. Would you like being the ISP who only had limited access to all Google's websites because you wouldn't pay?
- nmrm 12y agoIt's easier for Comcast to offer products to compete with Netflix than it is for Netflix to offer products that compete with Comcast.
- eftpotrm 12y agoBut what use is that if they don't have the content to drive traction? Netflix and Youtube aren't unique but each have strong leads in their respective niches. Being 'the only ISP who can't do online video' is hardly going to be a winning business model for them.