4 ms·

So maybe these plans are serving a different market segment. Is there any reason to believe an ISP would get rid of all their regular offerings in favour of the

So maybe these plans are serving a different market segment. Is there any reason to believe an ISP would get rid of all their regular offerings in favour of these site-specific plans?

rainbowmverse 9y ago
The big ISPs (in the US) haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.
- mediocrejoker 9y ago
  That's fair but you also have to ask what's in it for them to screw their users in this way. Why would an ISP want to prevent some small, unrelated startup from gaining exposure?
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    Google was a small, unrelated startup for a long time. Google Fiber was a real threat to the ISPs, but they already had a lock on municipalities and states. Some new upstart might find a way through that. Why risk it when they can just keep them from gaining traction in the first place?
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > Why would an ISP want to prevent some small, unrelated startup from gaining exposure? Once the startup takes all the risk to demonstrate market demand, the ISP can come in with their own offering and use the ISP monopoly to destroy the competition.
    - creaghpatr 9y ago
      You mean like Google or Facebook?
      - saghm 9y ago
        It sounds like you aren't a fan of how Google and Facebook operate from that comment; I don't think allowing _more_ companies to act like that is a very good remedy to that problem
  - DubiousPusher 9y ago
    Telecos across the board are parts of massive conglomerates with fingers in every pie. There are virtually no "unrelated" startups.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Okay, so if they do this, then the government should act. Preemptive regulation has all the downsides of regulation (eg lower investment) but potentially none of the benefits. This isn’t the kind of thing that will cause immediate, long-lasting, harm if a few ISPs explore this route before being shut down by the FCC or Congress.
  - SolaceQuantum 9y ago
    How would eliminating net neutrality increase investment? I think it will cause immediate, long lasting harm if ISPs, which are often incredibly large and serve countless people, force people to do this- imagine if you are poor and need the internet to find a job!
  - Pharylon 9y ago
    They did. Verizon was throttling Netflix for a long time. Title II regulation was put in place to address ISP abuses. Now they're going to come back, and probably get worse than before.
  - shmageggy 9y ago
    The lower investment argument seems totally backwards to me. If we kill net neutrality, that gives ISPs a path to further monetize their existing infrastructure without any additional investment via paid preferential fast lanes and such. However, with net neutrality in place, the only means by which they have to compete is overall service quality, which means they have to invest in their networks. It seems obvious that ISPs are lobbying for repeal precisely because it allows them to make more money with zero investment.
    - LoSboccacc 9y ago
      the current setup is not exactly working either - https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/11/22/the-most-and-least-expensive-countries-for-broadband-infographic/#74567eec23ef https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/11/22/the-mo... there needs to be some action - not removing net neutrality rules per se, but the utility/monopoly status has to go so that local provider can compete without being tied in billionaire lawsuits for the control of every municipality

So maybe these plans are serving a different market segment. Is there any reason to believe an ISP would get rid of all their regular offerings in favour of these site-specific plans?

rainbowmverse 9y ago

The big ISPs (in the US) haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.

mediocrejoker 9y ago
That's fair but you also have to ask what's in it for them to screw their users in this way. Why would an ISP want to prevent some small, unrelated startup from gaining exposure?
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  Google was a small, unrelated startup for a long time. Google Fiber was a real threat to the ISPs, but they already had a lock on municipalities and states. Some new upstart might find a way through that. Why risk it when they can just keep them from gaining traction in the first place?
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > Why would an ISP want to prevent some small, unrelated startup from gaining exposure? Once the startup takes all the risk to demonstrate market demand, the ISP can come in with their own offering and use the ISP monopoly to destroy the competition.
  - creaghpatr 9y ago
    You mean like Google or Facebook?
    - saghm 9y ago
      It sounds like you aren't a fan of how Google and Facebook operate from that comment; I don't think allowing _more_ companies to act like that is a very good remedy to that problem
- DubiousPusher 9y ago
  Telecos across the board are parts of massive conglomerates with fingers in every pie. There are virtually no "unrelated" startups.
marcoperaza 9y ago
Okay, so if they do this, then the government should act. Preemptive regulation has all the downsides of regulation (eg lower investment) but potentially none of the benefits. This isn’t the kind of thing that will cause immediate, long-lasting, harm if a few ISPs explore this route before being shut down by the FCC or Congress.
- SolaceQuantum 9y ago
  How would eliminating net neutrality increase investment? I think it will cause immediate, long lasting harm if ISPs, which are often incredibly large and serve countless people, force people to do this- imagine if you are poor and need the internet to find a job!
- Pharylon 9y ago
  They did. Verizon was throttling Netflix for a long time. Title II regulation was put in place to address ISP abuses. Now they're going to come back, and probably get worse than before.
- shmageggy 9y ago
  The lower investment argument seems totally backwards to me. If we kill net neutrality, that gives ISPs a path to further monetize their existing infrastructure without any additional investment via paid preferential fast lanes and such. However, with net neutrality in place, the only means by which they have to compete is overall service quality, which means they have to invest in their networks. It seems obvious that ISPs are lobbying for repeal precisely because it allows them to make more money with zero investment.
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    the current setup is not exactly working either - https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/11/22/the-most-and-least-expensive-countries-for-broadband-infographic/#74567eec23ef https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/11/22/the-mo... there needs to be some action - not removing net neutrality rules per se, but the utility/monopoly status has to go so that local provider can compete without being tied in billionaire lawsuits for the control of every municipality