3 ms·
So, you're saying, we should trust the business that's currently trying to milk more money from any tit they can find, to lower their prices because they're bri
by neura 12y ago
So, you're saying, we should trust the business that's currently trying to milk more money from any tit they can find, to lower their prices because they're bringing in a new revenue stream elsewhere? The same business that has no incentive to do so because they probably only have one competitor in a given geographical area?
The internet itself was basically built on equality. Look at any of the articles and blog posts being written by the actual internet backbone providers. They've been keeping the equality stable through the years with their peering agreements.
We would basically be giving the rights to providers like Comcast to say "We've decided that Wikipedia should pay extra if they want consumers of their information to continue to receive it in a timely manner." "Oh, we're also starting up a new service called Xfinipedia that provides a similar service, but one where we moderate the content."
Call it paranoid, but this is exactly what they're intending to do with video streaming services. They want to provide on demand video streaming to their online customers, while making it more expensive for competitive services to operate. What prevents them (or other providers) from doing the same with any service?
- tolmasky 12y agoNo, I'm proposing that there may be a scenario in which it becomes beneficial to provide a free service to customers in order to maximize profits. I other words I'm asking you to trust that they will want to make money (not be kind), which I don't imagine to be a hard hung to imagine. Just how google doesn't offer you search for free out of the goodness of their hearts but rather because it is an ultimately a more profitable model than charging us. Again, I'm not suing this will necessarily happen, and you should read runaku's reply for some good counter points.