Google, Netflix, Facebook, etc are not riding your pipes for free.
They pay their bandwidth bill, handsomely, at their end of the connection.
It is YOUR OWN CUSTOMERS who are using your bandwidth. YOUR CUSTOMERS are choosing to go to Google, or to whatever sites that use whatever bandwidth that customer uses. (Note: your customer might not even use Google at all, but still uses your bandwidth.)
If you need to build and develop your network, then it is YOUR CUSTOMERS who pay for that. Not the rest of the world.
(Pay attention Comcast, since you should hear this too.)
Here are a few other things to consider.
What if Google encrypts all communication between YOUR CUSTOMER and Google's servers? You would have no idea what packets are ads, email, video, instant messages, or anything else. You could only block all or nothing.
I suppose you could just block all of Google. Facebook. Netflix. And every other important major internet property.
I'm sure that will make your customers very happy.
That "smart" part of the TV will be obsolete in three years. While the TV part of it will be good for ten years.
Within three years the terms of service on that "smart" part of the TV will change without consulting you.
I like to get my set top box from where I choose, independently of the TV. I can easily replace the cheap set top box if it becomes hostile to use.
Finally, relevant to this topic, the way the "smart" players are playing does not give me confidence yet that I'm willing to commit to a long term set top box -- especially one built in to the TV -- that might be spying on me, if not today, then in a few years from now.
What if the maker of my Smart TV decides not to let me watch programs on internet service X or Y?
I'll just take a "dumb" TV with a large order of HDMI inputs please.
The real problem is you want to blame someone else
You don't want to get the real pirate. That would take actual work. So you're happy to get the ISP. The Web site. Anyone, really.
So you want a gigantic internet OFF switch.
You want a magic shutdown anything we want at any time with no legal recourse and no due process.
But the core problem is this: pirates exist. And any past, present or yet to be invented means of communications can be used to enable and facilitate piracy -- without any knowledge of an innocent provider of the communications mechanism.
If you propose that censors monitor all communications going through their systems, then who will bear the cost of that? Should Facebook monitor every post? Should Google monitor every email, every file attachment? What if Joe send a password protected ZIP file of a pirated mp3 by Gmail? Google cannot possibly know what is in that file attachment because they cannot open it. Do you propose to do away with file attachments?
Or maybe you propose to do away with any form of private communication?
Slater can offer multiple alternative arguments defending against the copyright infringement claim by PETA.
One such argument is that Slater did not infringe the monkey's copyright because . . . ta da . . . just as TechDirt and others have pointed out, the picture is in the public domain.
I would find this counter argument amusing, ironic simply because it is the opposite of what Slater argued when he wanted to own the copyright in order to profit from it. Now it is more expedient to argue the image is in the public domain, hence no infringement.
I suppose I would also own the copyright if I set up a system to snap a picture each time the ocean waves smash up against the rock. That makes sense.
Now, switching to 'just trolling mode' . . .
I have this device that, when a button is pushed, it takes a picture. I left the device on the ground anticipating the possibility that something might come along, pick up the camera and push the button.
Since I set up my apparatus to take pictures, do I own the copyright when a monkey takes the picture?
If I own the pictures when I set up a tripod camera to auto-shoot pictures when something moves in the frame, they why wouldn't I own the copyright in this hypothetical when I left my camera so that it could take a picture if something picked it up and pushed the button?
I sincerely regret that we at VW have violated the public's trust.
I ask for your forgiveness and pledge that in the future we will not get caught doing anything like this ever again.
I am deeply sorry that bad judgment and poor choices of actions resulted in personal embarrassment for myself and those who assisted in committing these terrible crimes. We will cooperate with investigators to determine what low level person to blame this on.
I take full responsibility for my negligence and lack of diligent care to ensure that we would not get caught. You have my personal assurance that all of us at VW will be more careful next time.
To all of those who were harmed by our deceptive, selfish and thoughtless actions I would like to humbly offer my sincerest indifference.
The major problem with Option 1 is that it undermines forward looking efforts to move the US to be more of a police state. Option 1 is almost an admission that there is little to be afraid of, at a time when the government needs people to be afraid.
Look at the model of some of the countries that we were fighting in the previous century. In one such country almost half the population was employed to spy on the other half. How would that work with Option 1? From what I seem to observe, the US in this century wants to change into the type of countries that the US was fighting in the previous century.
It's the quality of the malware contained within the ad.
Why should an ad be executing code on my computer? It's one thing if an advertiser wants to put pixels in front of my eyes. Even targeted pixels, which might be better in that I may be potentially interested.
Advertisers know no bounds. Have no shame. Advertisers would get legislation to make it mandatory to put animated advertisements on the insides of our eyelids if the technology were available. After all, the argument would go . . . when you close your eyes, you're not looking at anything, so what does it hurt to insert an friendly ad into that space. The next improvement would be sound to go with the eyelid ads.
The world is polluted with ads.
The problem is it doesn't scale. It's not as bad as telemarketing. Or spam. But it's effectively the same problem as spam, but at a cost to the advertiser. If every possible advertiser could get an ad in front of your face, any time they want, life would simply not be worth living. And the advertisers would not care!
Dear advertisers: when I need your product, I am resourceful enough to find it!