|
|
|
|
|
by bri3d
1686 days ago
|
|
I don't think the fear with network neutrality was ever the idea of a content aggregator buying content on behalf of a subscriber, was it? My understanding of the argument with network neutrality was that the combination of the network provider as a natural monopoly and the network provider's ability to render content inaccessible would result in a fragmented Internet - you can only run so many wires to a house, and if Provider B cut off Content A, you might not get Content A anymore. I don't see how this is the same thing. |
|
*(This friction can be zero. You needn't take any positive action to subscribe to the Nth website; rather the platforms you subscribe to abstract that away for you, as they monitor all your clicks and visits, and handle the income-splitting transparently behind the curtains. Basically the Spotify model, for the open WWW).