Netflix and other websites down 9/10/14Follow

But not in this case, right? Unless you're actually going to argue that the speed connecting to a remote site on the internet should only be dependent on what I paid for my bandwidth and not at all based on what the guy on the other end paid? Cause that would be pretty amazingly stupid.

Assuming you're not actually going to try to argue that position, then we must accept that both ends of an internet communication have to pay for the collective bandwidth usage, right? I guess what I find funny about this whole thing is how foolish the argument is. The total cost to maintain the network is the same. If you pass legislation preventing the networks from being able to use packet rules to force content providers to pay for cross network bandwidth usages, where the hell do you think the cost will be borne?

I'll give you a hint: Just as there are two sides of the connection, there are two customers collectively paying for it. If they charge the provider less, then they must charge the content consumer more. That's *you* btw. Want to see your basic internet cost double or triple? Push for net neutrality. Someone has to pay for the bandwidth. And if they can't implement rules to put that cost more on those using the most bandwidth, then the cost will shift to those using the least. This will most likely result in a higher entry cost to obtain any form of connection (ie: home user basic network costs will go up).

That's either a stupid way to say what you really meant, or a really foolish position to hold...