4 ms·
What I don't get is why the FCC can't simply tell ISPs to provide the service their customers pay them to. Seriously. By paying for internet access, the custome
by mpnordland 12y ago
What I don't get is why the FCC can't simply tell ISPs to provide the service their customers pay them to. Seriously. By paying for internet access, the customer pays the ISP to deliver any packets sent from or to their machine. This is nothing less that a protection racket in order to get paid twice. "Dat's a nice video streamin' site you got there, be a real pity if you couldn' get any customers".
- dragonwriter 12y ago> What I don't get is why the FCC can't simply tell ISPs to provide the service their customers pay them to. Contract law already does that. The transparency provisions of the previous and proposed Open Internet orders aim to solve the main particular problem of that in the ISP world, which is ambiguity on what exactly the service being paid for is. (The anti-blocking and anti-discrimination provisions, which are different in the old and new orders, go further and aim to align what the service being paid for is with a certain conception of what that service should be.)
- danielweber 12y agoPeople "paid for" a shared network, with all the benefits and drawbacks of such. You can have a private pipe if you want to guarantee no congestion at all, but expect to pay significantly more for it.