9 ms·
Because Net Neutrality was the angle that brings more money their way. Net Neutrality assumes the monopoly will stay, that no alternatives are available, and t
by Fellshard 6y ago
Because Net Neutrality was the angle that brings more money their way.
Net Neutrality assumes the monopoly will stay, that no alternatives are available, and that top-down control is the best bet.
If you focus on the monopoly instead, different ISPs could offer different advantages based on the consumer's requirements: gaming, video consumption, media upload, basic light browsing - you could tailor engineering costs to meet the needs of consumers, instead of one-size-fits-all baggage.
- nitrogen 6y agoOffering consumer-controlled latency prioritization doesn't violate net neutrality. Giving that control exclusively to the ISP, or to third parties who pay the ISP, does.
- est31 6y agoNet neutrality doesn't forbid you from offering+building low latency services (needed by gaming), or from offering+building symmetric internet connections (useful for media upload). "Basic browsing" can be implemented by just giving users a low bandwidth or weekly traffic quotas. Also, most of the difference in these services lies in the backbone, but that's not where most of the cost lies. The main cost is digging the last mile. Generally, having multiple ISPs put cables to your porch will n-fold their cost. Who's gonna pay for that in the end? You, the customer. It's best to have one ISP lay fiber cabling to your home and then have them rent it out to others, on terms set up by regulators in advance. Maybe that last mile ISP could even be publicly owned.