On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 8:38 am, randulo wrote: > Actually, you make a pretty decent preface there for the argument that > *sales* sites should pay more for access because they make money, > whereas the blogs, vlogs, and schlogs, hobby sites, free radio and > video, etc etc should always have reliable, broadband, free access on > solid peered networks. I'll go for that! >
Um, I think people should just pay for a service. More bandwidth costs more money, less bandwidth is cheaper. Trying to figure out how much to charge by content instead of usage is ... well, there's no polite way to say it ... pretty dumb. I produce the same bandwith load for AT&T with 100MB of ABC podcasts as I would getting 100MB of Dragon*ConTV ... that doesn't mean I should pay more or less for the bandwidth used to get ABC's content, and I should get it at a similar speed. Anything else is the insertion of anti-corporate nonsense or political correctness into a simple business transaction between myself and a communications company. It's akin to saying business should pay more per gallon for water, poor communities should get higher water pressure, or water must go to the BrandA faucet first because they sponsor the water company. I just want bandwidth in a free market economy ... that's all. If the company I use to get it doesn't give me proper service, then I want the ability to get it somewhere else. Go tell the folks at AskANinja or SliceOfSciFi they need to pay more for bandwidth now that they generate some revenue. Let me know how that goes over :) -- Brian Richardson - http://siliconchef.com - http://dragoncontv.com - http://whatthecast.com - http://www.3chip.com
