The top 15 percent of streaming video users go through 212 gigabytes of data month. That’s more than seven times the average broadband user, who uses 29 gigabytes.
Se internet ha per voi totalmente rimpiazzato la televisione — per serie tv, film, e quant’altro — consumate in media sette volte un normale utente. Forse ha ragione Ben Thompson, quando scrive che non basta supportare la net neutrality perché più giusta eticamente: ci vuole un piano migliore, che tenga conto degli investimenti che i provider devono fare sull’infrastruttura e derivi i soldi necessari per questi in qualche altro modo:
Or, we could have the situation we have now: emotional appeals for net neutrality on one side, with ISPs arguing they have the right to maximize the economic utility of their networks by means that most consumers will never see (i.e. making content providers pay for fast lanes) on the other, and only the latter includes a solution for incentivizing ongoing investment.
I presume many of my readers work in technology; if you were deciding between two potential alternatives, one backed with an emotional appeal about one priority, and the other by data and a clear articulation of how a different priority would be addressed, which would you choose? I suspect most would choose the one supported by data. In other words, it’s not enough to insist that a position is morally right; it behooves us who believe in net neutrality to work through how the US can balance net neutrality with the need for ongoing broadband investment, fashion a case for our position, and then build a political movement that makes our plan a reality. That is being serious.