's/tax/extortion payments/'
If I drive a rental car to a restaurant, the rental car firm shouldn't demand a cut of my dinner tab, either.
If I drive a rental car to a restaurant, the rental car firm shouldn't demand a cut of my dinner tab, either.
the people who own the infrastructure can ask what ever they want
including to pay to help support the infrastructure your business is using for free
I am paying my ISP for internet access.
Netflix is paying AWS(?) for internet access.
Why should Netflix have to pay my ISP? I already paid them!
If the ISP's customer has paid for "Down_Mbps/Up_Mbps internet service", then either the ISP needs to deliver the bits, or deliver a refund. If the ISP's management can't figure out how to calculate their costs, and charge enough to turn a profit, then either the shareholders or the government need to replace them with management who can.
And compensation to the current shareholders, for their evidently worthless companies, should be token at most.
It seems sensible to nationalize all critical infrastructure?
This is more akin to taxing the restaurant. The customer already paid, and the only reason they paid is because they wanted to go to the restaurant. Without the restaurant (or more broadly, places to go), people would have no use for the roads.
netflix delivers data to you
are you saying the delivery man should only buy his car (AWS) and never help maintain the road (infrastructure)?
why should the customer who order food has to pay for the road the delivery person will use? the customer already paid for the service!
why, to you, this analogy only works when it doesn't benefit the customer?
billions $ are circulating in the market, and our core infrastructures always has to suffer
look at what happened in Ohio
Consider a gravel road that connects your cabin to the main city road. The HOA might charge periodic maintenance fees to keep that road operable, depending on how many miles get driven on it, essentially charging you for usage.
If you then order delivery from a restaurant, then yes, it's very unreasonable for the restaurant to pay for that road's upkeep: they only need to travel that road because you ordered the food.
The restaurant should still pay taxes which go towards maintaining the city roads, but your privately operated HOA doesn't get to toll them to get to your house.
oh wait...
we'll keep arguing until Asia gets their interplanetary infrastructure before us
oh wait..
the goal is not to make internet a burden to the people
the goal is to make sure we are moving forward
but this is something obscure to certain people over here, hence our situation
But Netflix, like everyone else, already pays for their use of the networks. This looks like double-dipping.
No, it doesn't. You pay your ISP to deliver Netflix data to you.
>netflix delivers data to you
You have to stick with one story, you can't change your mind and expect people to not call you out.
>are you saying the delivery man should only buy his car (AWS) and never help maintain the road (infrastructure)?
If netflix runs their own delivery then they already pay for most of the costs including public infrastructure. There is no problem and no reason to pay extra for no additional service being rendered.
>why should the customer who order food has to pay for the road the delivery person will use? the customer already paid for the service!
I don't know in what universe you live but most companies that deliver products charge an extra delivery fee. In the case of the internet, the fee structure is split up so that data centers pay for delivery to a hub node and ISP customers pay for delivery from that hub node to their home. The delivery fee is merely split into two parts, absolutely nothing complicated. The delivery fee of the company is transparently included in their pricing and this means the entire delivery including infrastructure costs is already paid for. Your analogy regarding ISPs being the road makes no sense. ISPs are another delivery company, not a road company as most countries do not legislate that the infrastructure and service have to be separated into multiple companies.
>billions $ are circulating in the market, and our core infrastructures always has to suffer
What does that have to do with anything? High speed internet infrastructure is very cheap, you just need to build it but there is zero incentive to build out infrastructure if you can just charge more money without delivering a faster and higher quality service.
We could have had high speed internet in every country if ISPs weren't incentivized to get subsidies for their copper networks and milk those cash cows dry until they get even more subsidies for the fiber roll out even though they have plenty of money.