That's precisely what my point was; it would have put the ISPs at risk to having to pay ever increasing premiums to web content owners.Charles Schulzerie wrote:Actually the FCC is trying to make sure ISPs CAN'T charge us extra for premium content.Hypnagogia wrote:Also, consider that some websites are already starting to charge ISPs to access their content, such as ESPN360. Comcast gets it; Qwest doesn't.
Would net neutrality have forced ISPs pay up, so as to not block any content from their users?
Maybe this was is a good decision after-all...had they won, web content owners could've started charging ISPs retarded fees to access their sites, and of course the ISPs would just pass that cost on to the consumer.
I agree, this makes the most sense, and is probably the future model for online content, especially given this new ruling. But, had the FCC won...previous scenario might prevail.Charles Schulzerie wrote: What ESPN would start doing is just making a monthly payment plan to ESPN3 and skip out the middle man. It'd go out to a much wider audience and they'd end up making a lot more money.
I guess the biggest concern here is if ISPs decide to start filter types of content; like, say, Bit Torrent. But until a copyright owner complains, they generally don't care about content.
They put limits on total bandwidth, but even Comcast's "unlimited" bandwidth limit is so high, it will only effect the top 1% of basement dwellers.
So long as the ISPs are not held legally responsible for the content of their users, they should have zero incentive to put limits on types of content.