| > However, the fact remains that network infrastructure is expensive and it makes sense to pass more of the costs of that infrastructure onto those who derive more value from it (that is to say, those who use more of the available bandwidth). Which you do by charging different prices for different bandwidth or different amounts of traffic, just like you charge electricity based on the energy used?! > What's wrong with Whirlpool subsidizing the electricity use of their customers? Nothing is wrong with it, it's just nonsense. A business cannot subsidize the costs of using their product, at best they can sell you a package with the future costs already included in the purchase price, if they want to avoid going bankrupt. > So long as the electrical utility allows any appliance manufacturer -- not just Whirlpool -- to participate in such a program, I don't see a problem. ... and at the same price, yes, then everything would be fine. And completely pointless, because you'd simply end up pre-paying for the electricity with the purchase instead of when you actually use it. > You might argue that smaller appliance manufacturers don't have the resources to participate in such a program That contradicts your earlier premise that any manufacturer could participate in the program. > but that's just the nature of business. This is not about the business, but about the customer. Whether it's "the nature of business" or not, it limits competition, and limited competition tends to limit innovation and to increase prices ... if you like that as a customer, then I guess you should be against net neutrality. > Being big affords you certain advantages, like economies of scale. Smaller companies have to compete in other ways. That's essentially an argument for monopolies. If you prefer to buy from monopolies ... strange, but sure, you probably should oppose anti-trust law in general. |