On the one hand, it seems to be fair to force users - be they companies or individuals - to pay based on usage. Based on how many packets they put on the network. Currently they do not do that. What they do is to pay for their connection. If you want a very high speed connection, you pay for that.
Except for the part where it doesn't make sense because total usage (e.g. 300 GB in a month) has virtually nothing to do with the actual costs. The costs are tied to the peak bandwidth usage (e.g. 50 mbps), which is what consumers pay. There may be some added costs associated with total usage, but they are insignificant enough that it would cost more to calculate them than the costs they would have.
You may think it's a good idea in this regard... but what about when the feds decide they want to enforce other laws via their new powers? Decency laws? Cyber bullying? That doesn't sound so great to me...
That's what we have the first amendment for. The best way to address your concern is to fix the bad precedents set and make it universally clear that Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation and Miller v. California are wrong.
Yes, within this planet, which is utterly unlike the deadly hostile vacuum in space. Thanks for helping my argumen
Crossing the ocean was a dangerous and hostile ordeal as well when we were first colonizing the New World.
Yes, let's "assume" that... Eye roll...
Are you saying that it is actually impossible? I would suggest brushing up on Newton's First Law if you think so, and explaining how Voyager 1 is doing what it's doing.
Absolutely, completely delusional. Thanks for your time, but I stopped right there.
And I will likely stop reading the rest of your posts, as you appear incapable of doing anything other than non-specific whining and calling interest in space exploration a religion.