as usual, calandra gets thrown to the wolves.

it may be hard to figure out where this is coming from. but, the increasing ubiquity of netflix is a legitimate bandwidth issue that is driving up rates for third party isps and forcing low bandwidth users to subsidize high bandwidth users.

i'm on the internet all the time, but i'm a low bandwidth user. on average, i use around 5 gb/month - mostly 240p youtube streaming of lectures and alternative news sources while i'm eating. yet, i'm forced to pay for 150 gb/month - as the lowest, most introductory package. my isp recently raised prices, and compensated for it by doubling my bandwidth from 75 gb to 150 gb. but, this is useless to me - i'd actually rather pay less for less bandwidth. what i'm doing is subsidizing heavy users to deal with the way that the third parties have to interact with the local monopolies, and that functionally works out to a redistributive tax.

i figure i'm paying about $0.20/gb. if i was actually charged for what i'm using, i could take my internet bill down from $30/month to around $1/month.

do the conservatives have any ideas to break up the cable line monopolies, stop the subsidies to netflix users and allow for usage-based billing - to force netflix users to pay for the strain they're causing on the system?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCIxFnkI7SQ

it's the kind of thing where the limits of competitive market theory are exposed. it's hard to know what an adam smith might have said about cable lines, but i think we can take a few guesses.

i think there's an argument that cable lines are kind of like roads. you can't lay two roads beside each other and then let the owners compete - it's absurd. so, it makes sense for them to be built and operated by the state, and for everybody to have equal access to them.

the conservative party wouldn't have an opinion on that, would it?