8.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2014, 17:10
8.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2014, 17:10
Jan 16, 2014, 17:10
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 16, 2014, 13:52:
Cutter wrote on Jan 16, 2014, 13:26:
It's not charging twice, it's "premium". Much like coach, business, and first class seating on a plane. If you can afford it, good times, if not well fuck you peasant!

*sigh* I hate this classist shit.


This also isn't exactly right, because it still treats consumers the same. I haven't seen many scenarios pitched where it becomes a tiered thing. I mean, it's already a tiered thing, isn't it? I have 40mbps, but if I pay more, I could have 100mbps.

It's the corporations that get treated differently. Amazon and Netflix can pay Verizon and ComCast to treat their traffic differently. This would either mean it goes faster, or more likely it doesn't count to caps. Netflix could advertise that using their service is superior because of this, and Comcast would feel less bad about putting data caps in on people.

It kills innovation, because some startup can't compete with that. And it comes back to the consumer, anyway, because Netflix has to pay to grease Comcast's palm, so either they raise rates or they cut costs elsewhere.

Free market economics at work. As a public company it is your duty to make more and more money for your stockholders so you have to move into new markets and raise your rates. And when that's not enough for you to earn even more money than the obscene profits you made last quarter, because you don't want your stock downgraded for missing an earnings target some random analyst pulled out of his bum, you have to find new ways to exploit the resources you already have even if it means a big fat middle finger directed at your customers.

Because we all know the only people on earth worth anything are shareholders. Everyone else is just a parasite or peasant who should be exploited for maximum return.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014
2.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014
3.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014
12.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014
14.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014
4.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014
5.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014
6.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014
7.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014
 8.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014
  Re: Morning Legal Briefs
9.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014
10.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014
11.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014
13.
Jan 16, 2014Jan 16 2014