Maybe I'm missing something here. I thought that the phone companies who "invest billions of dollars" in establishing and maintaining broadband networks were remunerated by charging billions and billions of dollars to their customers, the average Joe who pays his monthly bill to access those same networks. I mean, the networks themselves have nothing to offer of their own that I would want to pay for. Rather it is the content that is available over those networks that gets my money out of my wallet and into theirs. Remove the content and I would have about as much use for a broadband connection as I would for a gynecologist. None.
The idea to charge the companies which, at no charge to the networks, provide a reason for millions and millions of subscribers to pay billions and billions of dollars is greed, so unbridled, as to be leading the telcos like Verizon on a breakneck chase down a rocky road straight into a brick wall. The wall is made of logic and the chase is the result of corporate myopia. What the network providers need is a good optometrist.
Think of it this way: I have a bus line. I pick up passengers at the train platform. If my bus company is called Verizon, I'm proposing to charge the railroad company for picking up their passengers while also charging the passengers for the same trip. You'd think I'd be glad that the train delivered passengers for me to pick up, thereby justifying that I have a bus company at all, let alone one that affords me a steady stream of passengers through no effort on my part. Duh.
Broadband providers, Google face off on access - Tech News & Reviews - MSNBC.com