Demaestro - 8:05 pm on Aug 9, 2010 (gmt 0) [edited by: Demaestro at 8:15 pm (utc) on Aug 9, 2010]
If a site is more popular than another it doesn't cost an Internet Service Provider anymore if a user downloads 50mb from that popular site or 50mb from a site no one goes to.... and yet the Internet Service Provider wants to charge more for the privilege of downloading 50mb at a popular site.
If no one can regulate how Internet Service Providers charge for access to the Internet then what is stopping them from charging you $0.05 a MB when going to a site you've never heard of and $0.10 a MB when going to a popular website when it makes no difference to them what sites you use your MBs on.
If I have a contract for 250MB a month of data transfer from Comcast then in what alternate dimension does it cost them more if I use it up on Youtube or on some site you have never heard of? Either way I am allowed 250MB?
It is false to claim that if all Comcast users went to Youtube at the same time that it would be any different from bandwidth point of view to Comcasts if each customer went to a unique website that required the same data transfer as Youtube.
It makes no difference to Comcast how someone uses their 250MB a month and if they use their 250MB and it is too much resources for Comcast to accommodate then they are at fault, not popular websites.
How can anyone justify charging more to go to a 50k page that is popular than a 50k page that isn't popular?
I would love to hear justification for such an action without imagining clogged up tubes or roads. Lets discuss the actual technology, not how it would work if we had to travel a physical road to arrive at a website. We don't.
[edited by: Demaestro at 8:15 pm (utc) on Aug 9, 2010]