I don't get the argument. I pay a telecom for service, I expect them to deliver whichever data I request. It doesn't matter where it originates, that's what I'm paying for. It shouldn't be dependent on whether some third party has coughed up or not.
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
20 points (83.3% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's just another way to make the line go up on another meeting, no proper reason, concern, or substance.
Every data gets even paid twice. The sender has an internet service contract and pays, the receiver does as well.
You opening some Lemmy post and requesting data, has the server owner pay via his hoster contract and you pay for the same data packet via your ISP monthly fee.
Now they are asking for a 3rd payment (once again). Why even stop at 3? Just ask for 4 or 5 payments and then meet in the middle at 3.
it is actually 4 because its two at both ends.
They pay through their ISPs who then pay through peering agreements. Whats next, my friend's ISP charging me to deliver him an email? Let's make it like in the US where you're charged for receiving SMS.
Fuck off.
Why don't they just raise rates on the companie's internet subscription?
A lobbying organization (ETNO) ranting for more favorable treatment isn't news.
I'm curious what the peering agreements are for all of those