Seems like many internet service provider in the US are attempting to push for pay per usage instead of capacity. Here is a side which I’ve yet to hear anyone talk about. Would ISPs be considered pirating copy righted material if they charge based on the bits passing through their networks?
Think about, mobile carriers transfer bits of voice data which phone users produced so they are not infringing on the copyrights of anyone. ISPs on the other hand would be copying bits of a song downloaded from one router to the next and charging the end user for it. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t they be making money off of that content which they have no rights over?
I would buy the argument that they are only providing linking service if they are selling us capacity. Charging per bit is very much tied to content. I think both RIAA and MPAA should be going after ISPs. I think the activity of bittorrent trackers like pirate bay seem more legitimate than ISPs charging per bits, since they do not host the content or make money off of it, yet pirate bay is the target of law suits. Why should ISPs be treated any differently?
In my mind, a legitimate approach for ISPs to charge per bits is to make sure that all available content on the internet is free. Which entails that they work out deals with all content providers. This would make the internet model closer to the arguments I hear that people pay per usage for electricity and water. Well, the electric and water companies produce these commodities for us, what do ISPs produce?