Open Media?

[sciguy-Ja3L+HSX0kI at public.gmane.org]

I'm not sure if you understand my question. I meant that, would the new 
ruling mean that both the website owner and the person who visits it be 
charged for the same traffic, in effect, allowing the ISP to collect 
revenue twice for the same bytes being transported? That would 
definitely sound abusive.

I have no idea what you construe as abuse, apart from spam, I suppose. 
I get a freakin' ton of it, and I've learned to cope with it years ago, 
as I believe most people would have by now. Would there really be 
anything more compelling than spam that would cause me to sign up with 
an ISP that charges by the byte, and would it really get rid of all 
that spam that mostly comes from foreign countries?

Paul

On 21 Nov 2010 at 18:39, James Knott wrote:

> sciguy-Ja3L+HSX0kI at public.gmane.org wrote:
> > Would this mean that an ISP can charge both the website owner and the
> > client for the same traffic being transported across its routers?
> >    
> It's entirely possible that there are more than one ISP involved.  The 
> point is that bandwidth costs money, though it's a lot cheaper than it 
> used to be. Flat rate encourages abuse.  UBB doesn't.
> 
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
> 
> __________ NOD32 5637 (20101121) Information __________
> 
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 


--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists