Open Media?

[James Knott]

sciguy-Ja3L+HSX0kI at public.gmane.org wrote:
> 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.
>    
You pay for the bandwidth that you use, in either direction.  There are 
costs to providing bandwidth within an ISP and between ISPs.
> 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?
>    
I was thinking of those who figure they're entitled to unlimited use, 
when rates and service levels are based on average or typical users.  
This means those heavy users are subsidized by others.  Why should 
someone who runs a busy file server pay the same as someone who has a 
bit of email and does a bit of surfing.
--
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