[selmnoo]

> But why? I understand the rationale for websites that are political or educational non-profits. They need the public to protect them.

By the way, to what extent? Here's a hypothetical to imagine: there's a next-generation Wikipedia which is all video-based, and is, say, responsible for 100x the bandwidth usage of Netflix. Does it still need to be protected?

Secondly, why does it need to be protected? Non-profits still have to pay for the buildings they buy, the equipment they buy, etc., why should they be treated as being special in the internet space? Why shouldn't they pay more just like Netflix, if they're eating just as much resources as Netflix (or more)?

[bandushrew]

Please, let us get the framing of the problem right.

Netflix already pays for the bandwidth they consume.

I, as a netflix customer and a customer of Comcast, already pay for the bandwidth that I consume.

Comcast, for some reason I cannot fathom, wants the right to force Netflix to pay additional money for the bandwidth that I, as a paying customer of Comcast, consume on Comcast's network.

[rayiner]

Non-profits have less resources with which to protect themselves, and have value to the public that goes beyond their money-making function. Theres not necessarily much money but a lot of value in protecting say dissident speech.

[selmnoo]

On the whole, sure, probably non-profits have less resources -- but there are many glaring exceptions. MIT and Harvard are sitting on a shitload of cash, for example. NFL as well. You know that NFL charges customers something like $150 for streaming access for one year? (http://www.nfl.com/watch-nfl-live ) And a lot of people pay for it. Should NFL pay up to Comcast for clogging the tubes football-season, just like Netflix does, even though it's a non-profit?