[danielweber]

"Comcast is bad people, and does bad things, so believe me about these bad things I say they want to do, even though they've never talked about it."

Surely the ISPs have done enough actual bad things that we don't have to imagine bad things they might someday do.

[crusso]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Comcast is already pushing for the ability to create a multi-tiered Internet.

That fact is even splashing over into popular culture, so I'm not sure which set of facts you're dealing with:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0...

[wmf]

There are several different forms that a multi-tiered Internet may take, and the differences matter. Charging customers to access content (as in that fictional strawman image) is not the same as charging content providers to access customers (which is actually happening).

[zero_intp]

Money is fungible. Costs to service providers /must/ be passed to those paying bills. There is no logical difference between costs to content providers and direct charges to customers.

The argument provided is an illustration to demonstrate who is paying in the end.

[danielweber]

If a comedian repeats it, it must be true? K. . .

Seriously, though, when has Comcast indicated it wants to charge its ISP customers per-website? When has any ISP ever put a surcharge on someone connecting to certain websites?

[crusso]

I had the option of putting an LA times link and several others that said the same thing, but the John Oliver link has the same information, draws conclusions without my having to repeat them, and is funnier.

Fact is that Comcast is lobbying big time to allow multi-tiered Internet access. That's public, easily-googleable information, so I don't understand why you're arguing otherwise.

[danielweber]

I suspect that you are getting "multi-tiered" out of that article, and then want me to get to that JPEG based on that.