Google sells out
Out of context: Reply #15
- Started
- Last post
- 48 Responses
- lukus_W0
I think this _might_ not be as dire as it seems.
There's been an argument for a while, that companies which use a huge amount of bandwidth should start paying for it. Since IPTV has become popular, the costs associated with being an ISP have increased. While in the old days, transmission cost a TV company money (because it had to be broadcast) - these days a large amount of the cost is shouldered by the intermediate ISP networks.
So, a lot of ISPs have been suggesting that the companies which consume these large continuous blocks of bandwidth, should start paying. For example the BBC has previously been asked to pay ISPs a section of the license fee to help them cope with the demand for iPlayer.
I suppose, if a deal is to be reached, the content creators need to be offered something extra in return for footing the bill. Perhaps this is why 'faster access' is on the table.
I'm not certain how this would lead to increased costs for the end user - because it's the ISPs that are gaining profit. It's a B2B transaction. Perhaps the content creators might want to pass of their costs via service charges - but until the web moves to a paid-for subscription model (as the norm), I can't see this happening for a while.
Anyway, this is what I reckon the base of the argument is.