4 ms·

Priorization and throtting aren’t exactly the same. Throttling implies rate limiting even if there is surplus bandwidth. Prioritization would only occur when ba

Priorization and throtting aren’t exactly the same. Throttling implies rate limiting even if there is surplus bandwidth. Prioritization would only occur when bandwidth was limited. Think of it as QoS based on a list of sites provided by the ISP.

sametmax 9y ago
But throttling is really hard to prove. They can always downsize some hardware to "prioritize" and "retarget their budget", but effectively they just throttle. Basically they can do whatever they want with the proper wording now.
- rhino369 9y ago
  Sabotaging their network just to throttle just doesn't make sense. Nobody is going to pay for a white-list only internet. That is fear mongering by the pro-NN side.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    ...except for it already happening in other countries without protections.
  - haZard_OS 9y ago
    You call it "sabotaging", I call it "enhancing monetization powers". Either way, it's sabotaging the public's access.
  - wtallis 9y ago
    > Nobody is going to pay for a white-list only internet. That is fear mongering by the pro-NN side. White-list only after the first few gigabytes is already happening. It's called zero-rating.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    If you had sane competition, maybe. But you don't, so they can do whatever they want and you'll pay for it unless you don't want internet at all.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
"We don't have the factory capacities at the moment, therefore your car is missing the back seat" is no better an excuse than "It's cheaper for us to leave out some parts, therefore your car is missing the back seat". There is no such thing as "surplus bandwidth". How much bandwidth there is is as much the decision of the ISP as what gets prioritized or throttled. If you make it illegal to throttle below available bandwidth, they will simply reduce available bandwidth (or even simpler, fail to increase available bandwidth). If there is more than one way to achieve the exact same result at exactly the same cost, it's completely pointless to make one of the ways illegal.

sametmax 9y ago

But throttling is really hard to prove. They can always downsize some hardware to "prioritize" and "retarget their budget", but effectively they just throttle. Basically they can do whatever they want with the proper wording now.

rhino369 9y ago
Sabotaging their network just to throttle just doesn't make sense. Nobody is going to pay for a white-list only internet. That is fear mongering by the pro-NN side.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  ...except for it already happening in other countries without protections.
- haZard_OS 9y ago
  You call it "sabotaging", I call it "enhancing monetization powers". Either way, it's sabotaging the public's access.
- wtallis 9y ago
  > Nobody is going to pay for a white-list only internet. That is fear mongering by the pro-NN side. White-list only after the first few gigabytes is already happening. It's called zero-rating.
- sametmax 9y ago
  If you had sane competition, maybe. But you don't, so they can do whatever they want and you'll pay for it unless you don't want internet at all.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

"We don't have the factory capacities at the moment, therefore your car is missing the back seat" is no better an excuse than "It's cheaper for us to leave out some parts, therefore your car is missing the back seat". There is no such thing as "surplus bandwidth". How much bandwidth there is is as much the decision of the ISP as what gets prioritized or throttled. If you make it illegal to throttle below available bandwidth, they will simply reduce available bandwidth (or even simpler, fail to increase available bandwidth). If there is more than one way to achieve the exact same result at exactly the same cost, it's completely pointless to make one of the ways illegal.