3 ms·

Mind clarifying the evil here? The word has a much stronger definition than seems suitable in this situation.

trengrj 10y ago
The combination of content providers and ISPs is deeply worrying from a net neutrality perspective. Evil is a strong word but imagine a future where ISPs chop and charge your for your data like cable and try to keep you looking at "their" content.
- drieddust 10y ago
  That is their plan pretty much.ISP are feeling cheated for no good reason. They think while they invest in upgrading the infrastructure to support the higher bandwidth demand, content provider keeps Lion's. They want to control of that revenue stream. In UK I recently asked for an upgrade of bandwidth for which they don't have to change anything since lines are already there, I still had to sign a new 12 month contract despite being a long term customer. Did I had an option? Not really because only they all have similar terms. There is so few of them that customer don't really have a choice. Vertical integration looks consumer friendly in short term only. In long term it just kills innovation and competition and screws up user.
  - pavs 10y ago
    I agree with you on ISPs having control over the content is a bad idea. But I also urge you to consider that the pressure on lower price from customers and government regulators are a real pain. There is a reason why ISP sector doesn't have a lot of competition (some of it has to do with strong-arming by existing market leaders in countries like the US) because it requires an insane amount of investment on infrastructure that constantly needs to be upgraded and maintaining last mile fibre can be a major pain in the ass (and expensive). Most ISPs don't start to see a return on their investment 10-15 years after the fact. There seems to be a lot of misconception about ISPs in general. I am an ISP owner and I wrote a small rant a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691465
    - drieddust 10y ago
      Thanks it's good to understand other side of the table. Your experience actually validates my premise that big player are squeezing out smaller players. They can even run on a loss for years just to make it unattractive for smaller/newer player.
    - __jal 10y ago
      > Most ISPs don't start to see a return on their investment 10-15 years after the fact. I think a fair amount of the anger at the huge ISPs is that they don't invest in many areas' infrastructure while raising rates, reducing the value of services by retroactively adding caps, and otherwise being exploitive in noncompetitive areas. AOLT&T (sorry, couldn't resist), in particular, is also well known to use threats of not expanding infrastructure as a political weapon, while Verizon is better known for pocketing billions in concessions while also not building infrastructure. But both do both. Now they want to confuse, and of course raise, your bill further, blurring fees for connectivity with content.

The combination of content providers and ISPs is deeply worrying from a net neutrality perspective. Evil is a strong word but imagine a future where ISPs chop and charge your for your data like cable and try to keep you looking at "their" content.

drieddust 10y ago
That is their plan pretty much.ISP are feeling cheated for no good reason. They think while they invest in upgrading the infrastructure to support the higher bandwidth demand, content provider keeps Lion's. They want to control of that revenue stream. In UK I recently asked for an upgrade of bandwidth for which they don't have to change anything since lines are already there, I still had to sign a new 12 month contract despite being a long term customer. Did I had an option? Not really because only they all have similar terms. There is so few of them that customer don't really have a choice. Vertical integration looks consumer friendly in short term only. In long term it just kills innovation and competition and screws up user.
- pavs 10y ago
  I agree with you on ISPs having control over the content is a bad idea. But I also urge you to consider that the pressure on lower price from customers and government regulators are a real pain. There is a reason why ISP sector doesn't have a lot of competition (some of it has to do with strong-arming by existing market leaders in countries like the US) because it requires an insane amount of investment on infrastructure that constantly needs to be upgraded and maintaining last mile fibre can be a major pain in the ass (and expensive). Most ISPs don't start to see a return on their investment 10-15 years after the fact. There seems to be a lot of misconception about ISPs in general. I am an ISP owner and I wrote a small rant a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691465
  - drieddust 10y ago
    Thanks it's good to understand other side of the table. Your experience actually validates my premise that big player are squeezing out smaller players. They can even run on a loss for years just to make it unattractive for smaller/newer player.
  - __jal 10y ago
    > Most ISPs don't start to see a return on their investment 10-15 years after the fact. I think a fair amount of the anger at the huge ISPs is that they don't invest in many areas' infrastructure while raising rates, reducing the value of services by retroactively adding caps, and otherwise being exploitive in noncompetitive areas. AOLT&T (sorry, couldn't resist), in particular, is also well known to use threats of not expanding infrastructure as a political weapon, while Verizon is better known for pocketing billions in concessions while also not building infrastructure. But both do both. Now they want to confuse, and of course raise, your bill further, blurring fees for connectivity with content.