Worst part is that they are excluding their own services from that traffic. So you can watch Telekom IP TV without buying a traffic extension, but for movies from the iTunes store you have to pay iTunes for media and Telekom for traffic. Nice one!
This is why we need the state to take back the phone network it paid for in the first place, manage it and rent it out to the Telekom like any other ISP ...
I kind of agree. But I get the opinion that provision of basic infrastructure like water supply, electricity, roads, railroad tracks and telecommunications should be handled by a democratic government instead of a profit-oriented enterprise...
And additionally, I tend to trust an elected government more than any enterprise that can basically do whatever they want
Ironic then that if you had sent those same communications through the government-organized postal service that it would be much more difficult to legally divulge that info to other parts of the government.
I think it's less about needing 'net neutrality' regulation and more about separation of priorities. Basically ISPs shouldn't offer media delivery services.
An NSP should be permitted to deliver vertical content, please don't stifle the free market. The monopoly on access should not be permitted to impose a tariff on competition.
IIRC, phone companies are common carriers, but your Internet service provider is not. That's part of the reason for the Safe Harbour provisions in the DMCA.
Basically, the person providing you with access to the Internet, should not also be trying to provide you with other services that compete with 'the Internet.' It provides incentive for them to violate net neutrality to boost their bottom line (e.g. What if we charge people more for access to YouTube, while our service is free? What if we change to a metered bandwidth model, but put in an exception for our service?).
