incrediBILL - 6:03 am on Jul 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Quite frankly, I think the people who should be paying for the upgrades are the telcos. Not their customers, not the companies who want to put sites on the internet.

You have an odd outlook as CUSTOMERS pay everything, including corporate taxes, because without customers corporations don't exist so whatever you think the 'corporation should pay for' is ALWAYS customers paying no matter what.

Next, the net has NEVER EVER EVER been neutral.

You want online cheap you pay for dial-up, you want to go faster you can buy ISDN or several levels of DSL or Cable modem, or drop a T1 in if your must, and each is priced upwards based on performance.

Same thing with webhosting, there's bottom of the barrel shared hosting for peanuts with 100s of people wedged onto one wheezing server or there's dedicated servers that cost more.

Even with a dedicated server you can get various data rates delivered for higher and higher prices so Joe and his hobby server for $139 doesn't even compare to some big WE-SELL-A-BUNCH ecommerce site with 3 servers for $500/ea. PLUS a big 4mbit pipeline or some nonsense like that.

Not to mention the fact that companies that want to provide top speed around the country or around the world, to avoid too many hops and data lag, have to install dedicated servers in multiple locations to maximize performance.

It's never been a one size fits all internet, never will be a one size fits all, and the people with the deeper pockets always pay more to get better service.

So I'm wondering where that neutrality is if it ever existed?

[edited by: incrediBILL at 6:04 am (utc) on July 27, 2006]