Comment Re:Up next (Score 4, Interesting) 382
Lets see,
for electricity and water, you build the delivery infrastructure, and the costs incurred by the company are the maintenance cost of this delivery infrastructure plus production of water and electricity.
A company could build a huge delivery capacity, but the resource itself (water, power source) is limited and increasing its availability to the customer is not possible.
Internet service providers, build the last mile delivery service, pay to maintain it, then produce what which we have to pay for? capacity? capacity is not scarce because we know they can build more capacity into their infrastructure.
Reaching an infrastructure's limit in usage, especially a huge one such as theirs, would tell me that it is fully utilized. They have to make a profit at this point because most of their cost is fixed! it might take time, but they can expand their infrastructure overtime and still make a profit, so I don't think capacity is the limiting factor here
content? which makes me wonder, don't content providers pay also for internet capacity? if the capacity exists for them to provide all their content, why shouldn't it be any different for the last miles the ISPs offer? aren't content providers also end users like us for other ISPS?
Here is another thought, why wouldnt the RIAA,MPAA sue ISPs when they charge us on bits for downloaded copyrighted content? wouldn't they be technically charging us for the content which they do not own? would they also be copying portions of the copy righted content every time it goes from one router to the next? why sue people running bit torrent trackers then and not ISPs?
for electricity and water, you build the delivery infrastructure, and the costs incurred by the company are the maintenance cost of this delivery infrastructure plus production of water and electricity.
A company could build a huge delivery capacity, but the resource itself (water, power source) is limited and increasing its availability to the customer is not possible.
Internet service providers, build the last mile delivery service, pay to maintain it, then produce what which we have to pay for? capacity? capacity is not scarce because we know they can build more capacity into their infrastructure.
Reaching an infrastructure's limit in usage, especially a huge one such as theirs, would tell me that it is fully utilized. They have to make a profit at this point because most of their cost is fixed! it might take time, but they can expand their infrastructure overtime and still make a profit, so I don't think capacity is the limiting factor here
content? which makes me wonder, don't content providers pay also for internet capacity? if the capacity exists for them to provide all their content, why shouldn't it be any different for the last miles the ISPs offer? aren't content providers also end users like us for other ISPS?
Here is another thought, why wouldnt the RIAA,MPAA sue ISPs when they charge us on bits for downloaded copyrighted content? wouldn't they be technically charging us for the content which they do not own? would they also be copying portions of the copy righted content every time it goes from one router to the next? why sue people running bit torrent trackers then and not ISPs?
