3 ms·
That's a separate issue. Even if you pay per byte, the ISP can charge more for bytes from one domain than from another, or refuse to transmit some bytes.
by nathan_long 9y ago
That's a separate issue. Even if you pay per byte, the ISP can charge more for bytes from one domain than from another, or refuse to transmit some bytes.
- Sophistifunk 9y agoThat's true, but when you're paying per byte its in the ISPs' best interest to get you as many bytes as possible. I firmly believe that the reason most ISPs want to be able to throttle isn't some nefarious plan to prioritise friendly providers, but simply to advertise more bandwidth than they have - in the past that's been fine because most customers didn't use much. But now that IP has replaced dedicated video bandwidth in the form of cable and FTA, the usage patterns no longer support that, because most customers are using shitloads of bandwidth- and more importantly, they're all doing it at the same time when they get home from work and sit down to watch some telly.
- nathan_long 9y ago> when you're paying per byte its in the ISPs' best interest to get you as many bytes as possible Yes, all other things being equal. But if the ISP owns a video streaming service, all other things aren't equal. Bytes from their own service bring them more revenue. > I firmly believe that the reason most ISPs want to be able to throttle isn't some nefarious plan to prioritise friendly providers, but simply to advertise more bandwidth than they have This would also be nefarious. "We said we can deliver X but we can't, so let's selectively degrade our service to make it seem like we can" is a nefarious plan. An honest plan would be to advertise "up to X Mbps, minimum of Y Mbps, charges prorated by available speed" and deliver on it.