What extra burden?
They get paid by customer to deliver bits.
The only extra burdens I see is the "burden" of 1) not double dipping and 2) not overselling their offerings.
They get paid by customer to deliver bits.
The only extra burdens I see is the "burden" of 1) not double dipping and 2) not overselling their offerings.
All the work to make sure it comply with net neutrality.
not taking extra steps to throttle Netflix,
i.e.
the burden of not double dipping.
I think few people are arguing that Netflix should get special treatment, only that:
* ISPs should treat all bits the same (unless I as the receiver has asked for something else).
* ISPs should have enough capacity to serve their customers.
- basic honesty (not pretending they don't get paid)
- and not extorting money from other companies by keeping said customers hostage
shouldn't be considered a disadvantage?
From oil companies, to fishing companies, to waste disposal to whatever, most companies from a purely technical viewpoint would be more than happy to get rid of regulations that control what and how they can do business. Yet, we have those regulations in place for a reason.
In this case we simply ask that ISPs deliver the bits we paid for. I don't want Comcast treating my bits differently anymore than I want my mail carrier to hold my packages ransom because they seem important and I'd probably pay more for them.
My mail carrier doesn't read my mail. Comcast shouldn't either.
Ie, in a purely technical sense corporations shouldn't want any laws/regulations. But that's not really a relevant fact to anything, is it?