4 ms·

Everyone worries about slippery slopes, but I think that limits should exist. Perhaps if you are consuming more than 10% of Internet’s bandwidth, you should hav

Everyone worries about slippery slopes, but I think that limits should exist. Perhaps if you are consuming more than 10% of Internet’s bandwidth, you should have to pay some kind of tax to ISP’s, and those funds should then be required to be reinvested in the network to make it more reliable or increase bandwidth. That seems like it would be an all-around win.

yorwba 9y ago
Those 10% of the internet's bandwidth are already paid for by the end user, why does there need be an extra charge?
nkristoffersen 9y ago
Bandwidth isn't free. You pay for it, I pay for it, Google pays for it, Netflix pays for it, everyone pays for it. Bandwidth is what we pay for. Net neutrality does not mean we get bandwidth for free. People who use more bandwidth have to buy more bandwidth already.
- downandout 9y ago
  These services that drive massive increases in bandwidth demand are the services I’m talking about. The demand for Netflix, for example, has required investment on the part of ISPs to support. Most residential cable broadband systems weren’t designed with these kinds of constant bandwidth demands in mind. So Netflix gets to grow, while ISPs face massively increased investment, lest their networks will be overrun. Why shouldn’t Netflix have to contribute to the increased investment that they are benefitting from?
  - DiThi 9y ago
    > The demand for Netflix, for example, has required investment on the part of ISPs to support. So the ISP were overselling bandwidth? > Why shouldn’t Netflix have to contribute to the increased investment that they are benefitting from? They do. Netflix give CDN boxes to ISPs for free. They contribute by saving the ISPs all that external bandwidth (which is what they oversell).
saladeen 9y ago
Most large bandwidth consumers do pay a 'kind of tax' to ISPs, by installing their own hardware at ISP's locations to lower the bandwidth use.
BenjiWiebe 9y ago
Just remember, the people watching Netflix are the ones consuming the bandwidth. I agree, though, the watchers of Netflix should pay a tax so the rest of us don't get our network congested to the point our torrents are slowing down. :)

yorwba 9y ago

Those 10% of the internet's bandwidth are already paid for by the end user, why does there need be an extra charge?

nkristoffersen 9y ago

Bandwidth isn't free. You pay for it, I pay for it, Google pays for it, Netflix pays for it, everyone pays for it. Bandwidth is what we pay for. Net neutrality does not mean we get bandwidth for free. People who use more bandwidth have to buy more bandwidth already.

downandout 9y ago
These services that drive massive increases in bandwidth demand are the services I’m talking about. The demand for Netflix, for example, has required investment on the part of ISPs to support. Most residential cable broadband systems weren’t designed with these kinds of constant bandwidth demands in mind. So Netflix gets to grow, while ISPs face massively increased investment, lest their networks will be overrun. Why shouldn’t Netflix have to contribute to the increased investment that they are benefitting from?
- DiThi 9y ago
  > The demand for Netflix, for example, has required investment on the part of ISPs to support. So the ISP were overselling bandwidth? > Why shouldn’t Netflix have to contribute to the increased investment that they are benefitting from? They do. Netflix give CDN boxes to ISPs for free. They contribute by saving the ISPs all that external bandwidth (which is what they oversell).

saladeen 9y ago

Most large bandwidth consumers do pay a 'kind of tax' to ISPs, by installing their own hardware at ISP's locations to lower the bandwidth use.

BenjiWiebe 9y ago

Just remember, the people watching Netflix are the ones consuming the bandwidth. I agree, though, the watchers of Netflix should pay a tax so the rest of us don't get our network congested to the point our torrents are slowing down. :)