4 ms·

I think it becomes easier to think about this, if I frame the problem in terms of more tangible objects than bandwidth and data. The public street network is i

I think it becomes easier to think about this, if I frame the problem in terms of more tangible objects than bandwidth and data. The public street network is in large parts paid for by taxes, so for everyone access to the network is already payed for. If I now envision a single company blocking all streets with its giant truck fleet, I could completely understand a motion to introduce a new form of toll to be payed by such companies to avoid having to rise taxes. That toll would most likely just increase the price of whatever said company is selling.

viceroyalbean 5y ago
I don't think that's a fair framing. As others have said, the users of the broadband pay for their bandwidth. It's not Netflix pushing data, it's the users pulling it. If you have 100 users that pay you for 1Gbps/s but your network can't handle 100Gbps/s that's your failure to adhere to the contract you made with your users. In the road example, it's more like if every person paid for the ability to put one truck on the road and everyone delegated their truck space to a shipping company who now has millions of trucks hogging the roads. Yes, they're using tons of infrastructure but their usage has been paid for already.
Jensson 5y ago
Its more like, there is a new stadium in town. Then the stadium holds a game with a team from a nearby town, everyone in that town wants to drive to see it, so all the streets in that town are now clogged. Should the stadium pay the other town money to hold a game because lots of people there drive to watch it? Or should the other town build their roads to meet the demand of their citizens? I think the second option is more reasonable, the problem was that there wasn't enough road for the citizens in general, not that there wasn't enough road for them to watch this particular game.
resizeitplz 5y ago
Envision every driver owning a semi-truck made by the company. It's not a single company blocking the streets; it's the drivers who purchased the company's very large vehicles and who also paid for street access.
mdip 5y ago
It's more of a "false advertising" arrangement than that, though. If the ISP is selling me 1Gbps access to specific internet content only and I purchased the plan I use based on that knowledge[0] then charging me a toll for things that are outside of that specific internet content would be acceptable. But I didn't. I signed up for service that was limited only by speed, not consumption. It's a little more evil than that, though. In a consumption/speed model, the two work against each other. I've paid a premium for 1Gps service over 300Mbps which results in me hitting that consumption barrier much faster, so I've paid for the privilege of getting hit with more "tolls". That's a hell of a profitable business model if you can get customers to actually do business with you. Using a different analogy, the car wash company by ,y father's house offered $3/use car washes or a $30/month plan with hand-towel drying. It's a profitable arrangement for the car wash because most people won't wash their car ten times in a month. My dad, however, owned a company that sold products to automotive manufacturing plants and placed an unusually high value on having a very clean car. He took his car in for a wash every morning and many afternoons. That was the point of buying the $30 plan. For the car wash company to turn around and say "You're using your unlimited service so much that you're negatively affecting access to the car wash for our more profitable customers" would be illegal. That's not to say it doesn't happen all the time in other places, but it also doesn't mean we should allow it. [0] And it's not OK for that to be buried in paragraph 11 of subparagraph a) in the user agreement as "abuse of network services".
jedberg 5y ago
This already happens. The big trucks are UPS and FedEx and Amazon. This companies already pay to maintain their trucks, which includes taxes for road maintenance through gas tax and registration fees. Those trucks are only on the road because all the people in the houses keep ordering stuff online. Should FedEx/UPS/Amazon have to pay an extra tax just because they are popular with the people? The homeowners already pay taxes to maintain the roads to their houses. Why should the city get extra from the trucking companies?

viceroyalbean 5y ago

I don't think that's a fair framing. As others have said, the users of the broadband pay for their bandwidth. It's not Netflix pushing data, it's the users pulling it. If you have 100 users that pay you for 1Gbps/s but your network can't handle 100Gbps/s that's your failure to adhere to the contract you made with your users. In the road example, it's more like if every person paid for the ability to put one truck on the road and everyone delegated their truck space to a shipping company who now has millions of trucks hogging the roads. Yes, they're using tons of infrastructure but their usage has been paid for already.

Jensson 5y ago

Its more like, there is a new stadium in town. Then the stadium holds a game with a team from a nearby town, everyone in that town wants to drive to see it, so all the streets in that town are now clogged. Should the stadium pay the other town money to hold a game because lots of people there drive to watch it? Or should the other town build their roads to meet the demand of their citizens? I think the second option is more reasonable, the problem was that there wasn't enough road for the citizens in general, not that there wasn't enough road for them to watch this particular game.

resizeitplz 5y ago

Envision every driver owning a semi-truck made by the company. It's not a single company blocking the streets; it's the drivers who purchased the company's very large vehicles and who also paid for street access.

mdip 5y ago

It's more of a "false advertising" arrangement than that, though. If the ISP is selling me 1Gbps access to specific internet content only and I purchased the plan I use based on that knowledge[0] then charging me a toll for things that are outside of that specific internet content would be acceptable. But I didn't. I signed up for service that was limited only by speed, not consumption. It's a little more evil than that, though. In a consumption/speed model, the two work against each other. I've paid a premium for 1Gps service over 300Mbps which results in me hitting that consumption barrier much faster, so I've paid for the privilege of getting hit with more "tolls". That's a hell of a profitable business model if you can get customers to actually do business with you. Using a different analogy, the car wash company by ,y father's house offered $3/use car washes or a $30/month plan with hand-towel drying. It's a profitable arrangement for the car wash because most people won't wash their car ten times in a month. My dad, however, owned a company that sold products to automotive manufacturing plants and placed an unusually high value on having a very clean car. He took his car in for a wash every morning and many afternoons. That was the point of buying the $30 plan. For the car wash company to turn around and say "You're using your unlimited service so much that you're negatively affecting access to the car wash for our more profitable customers" would be illegal. That's not to say it doesn't happen all the time in other places, but it also doesn't mean we should allow it. [0] And it's not OK for that to be buried in paragraph 11 of subparagraph a) in the user agreement as "abuse of network services".

jedberg 5y ago

This already happens. The big trucks are UPS and FedEx and Amazon. This companies already pay to maintain their trucks, which includes taxes for road maintenance through gas tax and registration fees. Those trucks are only on the road because all the people in the houses keep ordering stuff online. Should FedEx/UPS/Amazon have to pay an extra tax just because they are popular with the people? The homeowners already pay taxes to maintain the roads to their houses. Why should the city get extra from the trucking companies?