There is only so much fresh water an area can be supplied with. There's no unlimited; only reasonable use. The same goes for bandwidth, if I tried downing 200+ gigabytes a month I would be cut off. Britain is also very overpopulated when you take land mass into consideration. Network neutrality is more complex then the simple consumption of network traffic.
Edit: I'm not exactly arguing against you. But this idea that public utilities and services will offer unlimited and free services is wrong, there's always a limit in any system regardless of ownership.
-
jerome scuggs' weekly "shit hits the fan" politics thread
In a recent debate over net neutrality I had with a friend, I used the metaphor of water. Here in the US, we pay for water in incremented units - if you use alot, you have to pay alot. I referenced this concept because in the context of net neutrality, the consumer expects unlimited internet for one price - something internet companies are having trouble dealing with because they their network bandwidth can only take so much.
Well, as it turns out, I was right - at least about the water. Britain can no longer afford to give people access to unlimited water, and they are going to introduce metering, which will put serious stress on people who previously took it for granted.
Water down, healthcare to go!
Look's like Europe's gonna have to bite the bullet. Wonder how alot of "necessary" services are going to be paid for?The eurozone is tipping into a deeper downturn than America itself despite the tremors in the US mortgage industry, and may already be in full recession for the first time since the launch of the single currency.
Leave a comment: