graeme_p - 8:53 am on Aug 10, 2010 (gmt 0)
Lots of allegations of some sort of evil plot here, but when I actually read the statement it comes to "Google wants net neutrality, Verizon does not, this is a compromise we could both live with."
All this is going to do is get the cable companies to move to 'pay for what you eat' models of payment for us.
That is a good thing. It has to be paid for by someone, and getting users to pay directly is the best way to ensure a competitive market for it, transparent to users, rather than a set of deals between big players.
an unnamed "regulatory authority" policing website content
Where does it say that? It says that the FCC should not regulate content or software - not that someone else should.
The current restrictions on content are criminal law (for certain content) and copyright law (for everything else), and this does not suggest adding to those.
Does anyone on here really feel that someone who transfers 250MB a month using FTP should pay less than someone who transfers 250MB a month on Youtube?
Of course they do. The do not want to admit it, but a lot of this comes to "get someone else to pay, not me". Of course, they forget that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and if the big sites pay, they WILL get to rig the network in their favour.
Until recently only a few users really made use of uncapped broadband, so the telcos were willing to take the hit in order to advertise unlimited services. As more and more people actually make use of it, the heavy users can no longer be subsidised, so have to pay their way. What people here want is for their heavy use to be subsidise, and other heavy users to pay.
Incidentally, I assume you mean GB, not MB: it takes almost 250MB just to install Lyx.