Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Because we are generally well supplied with water. But what is a hosepipe ban apart from a form of throttling? There is no question that charging people for the water they use reduces the incentive to be wasteful.
I think the idea of net neutrality as a shibboleth where any kind of deviation is a slippery slope to Orwellian nightmare is not helpful. There are some cases (e.g. spam) where it is obviously a good thing that content is discriminated against.
ISP throttling is also a good thing. I don't want my light browsing in the evenings to get disrupted by someone who's hogging bandwidth by downloading gigabytes of media. If they want fast download speeds they should pay for a premium service that gives them more bandwidth.
I'm not comfortable with companies bringing political considerations into how much they are charging sites - but that seems to me to be a different issue to charging for the intensity of resource consumption. I suppose the question for me in this case is why ISPs/network owners feel entitled to double-dip: first in charging for download bandwidth usage, and then in charging for server bandwidth usage...
This may bite them on the arse. I pay a lot of money for my 200Mb service, if I find that speeds are dropping with the things I use the net for, then I'll move to a package that matches the available speed. Many others would do the same I imagine.




