
There is really no reason for ISPs to do this anyway. Their problem is with certain services, not websites. Google and Wikipedia use relatively little bandwidth and aren't really a threat because the ISPs don't have any competing services. Honestly, why would Blogger cost more than anything else? That doesn't make any sense.
Since many ISPs are telecoms and/or cable companies, they see certain services cutting into their business model. Why would somebody need to pay for home phone service when they can get VOIP cheaper? Why use their ISP's VOIP service when there are cheaper alternatives? Why watch cable when they can go to a website and select which episode of which show they want to see?
A more realistic model would be something like this.

If they all started charging like that they could possibly be brought to court for collusion.
What the ISPs actually were talking about is charging websites such as Google for higher priority than other websites. Their opinion is that Google is getting a free ride on their network, despite Google having paid its ISP and the users having paid their ISP. This model would not work either since it would affect every game server, VOIP company, instant messenger, etc.
The fairest solution would be to charge users for the bandwidth they use. Light users (people who only check email, browse websites, etc.) would pay less and heavy users (people who download movies/games/whatever) would pay more. This is how data centers charge and they have no shortage of customers. The only thing you'd have to worry about there is how much markup the ISP sticks on. They obviously have to make a profit which is what the initial monthly charge is for. Anything else would simply be a higher package or add-on. At most data centers you can get a rate of $0.50/GB or less, but ISPs charge more than that for overages.
No comments:
Post a Comment