Originally Posted by
SonsOfLiberty
As I said, people pay for a service and should get that service
Sorry bro, but the service is given with certain preconditions. They determine the nature of the service, and you determine whether they get your money. They try to provide most favorable service for the most amount of people. That may require diminishing the quality of the service (throttle) for a few (pirates) for the benefit of the many (non-pirates). There are trade-offs in every decision. If the customers begin to desire a more 'neutral' connection to the internet and unlimited bandwidth usage (i.e. for file sharing), then, as long as the customers are given a choice between an ISP that does and an ISP that doesn't throttle, the ISPs will change accordingly or go out of business.
Simple as that. There is no moral issue if there is competition between ISPs who throttle and ISPs who don't. The customers are still free to decide. If a little kid is selling lemonade that is way too sour, do you punish her for her poor service... or do you just buy lemonade at Martin's? Do you buy the little kid's lemonade and then cry to the government to "make her sell lemonade that tastes better"? Or do you just go to Martin's, enjoy their lemonade, and watch the inept kid fail at her first business?
So just change your ISP and watch Cox's stock value decline. That is, if this Bittorrent protocol is as popular as you allege. (For some reason I doubt Cox is making the wrong financial decision.)
Bookmarks