​Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications​. What am I missing? On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
It's not. And that's the point.
This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net Neutrality] Because there are fewer operators there will be less competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has no incentive to support the application well. [Note, we just reduced the freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it slows growth.
Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application (bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per application bandwidth caps) is desirable.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -