​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 <bl...@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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -