Quote:
|
Originally posted by Titan+May 14 2006, 07:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Titan @ May 14 2006, 07:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Then you choose another ISP. Called the power of the consumer. [/b]
|
...and this is called racketeering, plain and simple. It artificially harms -- for example -- Google's business due to no fault of Google. It's been illegal for a long, long time. Your proposed solution shifts the burden to the consumer, which is ridiculous. I'm a Libertarian and even *I* don't suggest that the free market is the solution to organized crime.
<!--QuoteBegin-McGroin
You're ISPs pretty much want to regulate the internet under their control, and they want to accomplish this by deciding what content is or is not available to you.[/quote]
That's not entirely true. By being able to restrict access to certain things a provider loses it's common carrier status, a gamble which no major ISP is stupid enough to take. What they are talking about, however, is "prioritizing" certain web properties over others (by degrading access to *everything* unprioritized). What it breaks down to, really, is that the ISPs don't care about control; rather, they care about double-charging service providers such as Google (once for the upstream bandwidth or peering and then again for priority access).