STRONGLY disagree! The corporation already billed their subscribers for the data transfer, why should they be paid twice for the same thing?
Are you upset that magazines and newspapers collect payment (twice!) from both readers and advertisers?
No but this is not 'B2B arrangements' were talking about here, this is 'pay us protection money or we'll effectively eliminate your business'
I do get up in arms when a company buys a drug that used to cost $10, makes no improvements to it and ramps up the price to $700, but this is even worse, since in the former case there's at least still only the customer being charged for the product, not also the delivery driver for the right to deliver it.
What value are the ISPs adding that the customers are already not paying for?
> Are you upset that magazines and newspapers collect payment (twice!) from both readers and advertisers?
The cost of a newspaper doesn't usually cover all its production costs via customer sale, so the ads fill the rest, whereas here Comcast is already a hugely profitable company from customer sales anyway.
There's Amazon Kindle 'with special offers (ads), but the device is cheaper than the version without ads. I don't think the plan is for ISPs to make broadband any cheaper for customers by starting to charge businesses for the thing they already were paid for.
I don't think my argument should be this hard to understand, unless you're a Verizon lawyer.
I think the fact that many ISPs have local monopolies is not fine. I don't think net neutrality is related to that, and I think we're basically talking about a corporation billing another corporation for data transfer, which is pretty ok as business models go (and certainly doesn't justify this level of outrage).