When a wee website gets pointed to by a big website, like Digg, it often falls over. That's because it's not in the host's interest to pay a huge hosting bill just because everyone and his Internet dog would like a peek.
Now, who would disagree that a great improvement in the system would be for someone to be able to host their web site on, say, Amazon Web Services EC2/S3 platform, and set a limit on how much they were willing to pay out of their own pocket to host the site per month. Then, once they've hit that limit, the requesting ISP has to pay instead.
So now I can choose to subscribe to a 'premium-enabled' ISP, and get to see all that content that's been Slashdotted, and get a monthly top-up bill for the pleasure.
Can someone who wants a network neutrality law please explain to me how they're going to word it to avoid preventing such improvements to the Internet. Anyone?
Posted by Martin Geddes at 5:23 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telepocalypse.net/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/mgeddes/MT/mt-tb.cgi/915