The market already decided it didn't want games played with internet price. Every time the battle happens in the '90s with dialup and '00s with broadband the market demanded flat fees and "unlimited" use.
The idea companies won't invest in wireless broadband if they can't collude with content partners is ridiculous on its face. Wireless broadband is a mammoth market opportunity with revenue potential perhaps equal that of wired broadband. Who wouldn't want in on that?
An packet should be a packet. The provider shouldn't care if it's coming from their competitor's site or some corporate cousin. If you're streaming shows off the website of a TV network with whom they're battling over prices, it shouldn't matter. They can't be allowed to become gate keepers to whom pay ransom to get content.
Imagine of FR had to pay Comcast to get the speed for its traffic that Huffington Post got?
>> Imagine of FR had to pay Comcast to get the speed for its traffic that Huffington Post got?
I don’t agree with your premise that the govt can make it better.
The first rule in the equation is: Lawmakers are generally bias, self-serving, orifices that sell restrictions on your Liberties.
A dependent consumer is a weak consumer. Yeah, it’s a pain in the ass to rally against a Leftward provider, but given restrictions are NOT made on commerce, another can compete.
The argument should be limited to the shared physical properties of distribution: poles, towers, tunneling, etc.
The extremely attractive private investment should not be deemed public domain simply because it’s an ultra-cool, gotta have technology. That attitude is typical of the spoiled, envious brat. And yes, a sector of society has adopted that pathetic attitude.
It is not the govt’s job to determine how packets are throttled. That is a #ing insane thought.