Comment Re:Bandwidth goes two ways (Score 1) 481
It's not like saying my car payments amount to a toll at all... It's like saying "I already pay for cable, and it includes ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. If you want me to pay for Showtime, you'd better get some better shows, because HBO already has my money."
to me it sounds more like you are saying "i already pay for electricity to run my tv, so if you want me to pay the cable company too, just to get tv, you better have a good reason."
The bottom line is that unless *all* of the content is pay-per-view, there will always be some of us who get enough value from the free content not to be bothered by paying for more. Or we will pay for a select few sites, and the others will simply die on the vine.
this is a valid, if irrelevant point. will people consume free content? heck yea! no big surprise. does that mean no one should try to produce content for pay? the cable company took on a content for pay method when over air broadcasts were free. some people still don't use cable, but only watch over-air free broadcasts. does that make the cable-co's model dumb? i don't think it does.
i'm glad you feel like you are willing to pay for decent content.(LOOK! I READ YOUR POST!) and I agree with you on that. I don't want to pay for crappy content either, and I am willing to pay for good content, if the price is right. You're absolutely right that paying for content is an additional financial burden and must be factored into the calculations and budgets of consumers.
But no one is really saying "the internet is free" in an attempt to say you don't pay for access. they merely are saying YOU DON'T (generally) PAY FOR CONTENT. An argument about the cost of access is a valid point, but a very minor one.
to me it sounds more like you are saying "i already pay for electricity to run my tv, so if you want me to pay the cable company too, just to get tv, you better have a good reason."
The bottom line is that unless *all* of the content is pay-per-view, there will always be some of us who get enough value from the free content not to be bothered by paying for more. Or we will pay for a select few sites, and the others will simply die on the vine.
this is a valid, if irrelevant point. will people consume free content? heck yea! no big surprise. does that mean no one should try to produce content for pay? the cable company took on a content for pay method when over air broadcasts were free. some people still don't use cable, but only watch over-air free broadcasts. does that make the cable-co's model dumb? i don't think it does.
i'm glad you feel like you are willing to pay for decent content.(LOOK! I READ YOUR POST!) and I agree with you on that. I don't want to pay for crappy content either, and I am willing to pay for good content, if the price is right. You're absolutely right that paying for content is an additional financial burden and must be factored into the calculations and budgets of consumers.
But no one is really saying "the internet is free" in an attempt to say you don't pay for access. they merely are saying YOU DON'T (generally) PAY FOR CONTENT. An argument about the cost of access is a valid point, but a very minor one.
