My proposed feb 27 2015 tt comment

"Wouldn't make sense to make JR get a license and then have all us unlicensed users."

If I want to go duck hunting, I have to buy a hunting license and a duck stamp. But if I serve my kill as dinner to friends and family, those people don't have to pay a license to eat the duck.

I don't know much about any of this net neutrality stuff, but my professional cynicism tells me to distrust 300-plus pages of anything that's produced by government at any level.

Where did this licensing-site-owners thought come from?

I don't know if licensing site owners will ever occur, but I currently pay monthly web hosting fees and domain name registration fees that users of this site don't have to pay. And I maintain five other websites with more hosting and domain name fees.

If licensing did ever occur, it would probably be handed down by either the web hosting provider and/or the domain name register as increased fees.

Network Solutions has increased fees over the past year or so. The web hosting provider that I use for Toledo Talk has grandfathered me in to their cheapest plan that they no longer offer.

I doubt that a Facebook user will have to pay a license fee.

If you host your blog a Wordpress.com, Blogger.com, or Tumblr.com, but you don't use your own domain, then you may not need a license. So this would be okay:

http://mysitename.blogspot.com
http://mysitename.wordpress.com
http://mysitename.tumblr.com

But if you buy a domain name and map to your Wordpress, Blogger, or Tumblr blog like this http://mysitename.com then you may need a license.

---

"Well hope JR has saved up enough for the license he will need to operate this site in the future."

Where does that website-licensing idea come from?

"Wouldn't make sense to make JR get a license and then have all us unlicensed users."

I currently pay monthly web hosting fees and domain name registration fees that users of this site don't have to pay.

If licensing site owners did ever occur, it would probably be part of the domain name registration fee. But that would mean domain name squatters would have to pay more. So maybe the license fee would occur when the domain name DNS points to a hosting provider's server.

A Facebook user would not need a license.

If you host your blog at http://mysitename.tumblr.com then you would not need a license.

But if you buy a domain name and use domain name mapping to point to your Tumblr, Wordpress, or Blogger hosted blog, then you may need to buy a license even though you are not paying a web hosting fee.

---

"Well hope JR has saved up enough for the license he will need to operate this site in the future."

Where does that website-licensing idea come from?

"Wouldn't make sense to make JR get a license and then have all us unlicensed users."

I currently pay monthly web hosting fees and domain name registration fees that users of this site don't have to pay.

You can host a blog at Wordpress or Tumblr for free, but your URL would be something like http://mysitename.wordpress.com or http://mysitename.tumblr.com .

If you want a custom URL for your blog, then you would have buy a domain name, and then you would use domain name mapping for your Wordpress or Tumblr blog so that your URL would be http://mysitename.com . Wordpress charges a fee for domain name mapping. I don't think Tumblr does.

You have an additional fee if you pay for server space so that you can install software. So site owners with custom domain names are already paying fees.

I understand the tin-foil, conspiracy theory of licensing site owners in order to discourage people from creating websites with custom domain names to host content that's mostly outside someone's terms of service.

If licensing site owners did ever occur, it would probably be part of the domain name registration fee. But that would mean domain name squatters would have to pay more. So maybe the licensing fee would occur when the domain name DNS points to a hosting provider's server.