4 ms·
That's conspiracy. It's more like they could sell SDSL for more money to business customers, as people who need more upload bandwidth gotta pay more, while bein
by johannes1234321 2y ago
That's conspiracy. It's more like they could sell SDSL for more money to business customers, as people who need more upload bandwidth gotta pay more, while being able to sell huge numbers in downstream. Plain simple capitalism.
- detourdog 2y agoI admit it could be conspiracy but I don't understand why you think the ability to sell a subscription for more money has an effect on the transport medium of the service. They could invent any service they want and run it over fiber. Do you consider it a conspiracy theory that cable companies sell asymmetric bandwidth? Anytime I see asymmetric bandwidth I see it as an assault against the Hunan right to publish. That is my reasoning for thinking such conspiratorial thoughts.
- johannes1234321 2y agoThe ISP absolutely doesn't care if you publish ... they just don't want somebody to host stuff without paying a premium, since people are willing to pay more for it.
- detourdog 2y agoSounds like a disincentive to publish to me. Remember when all bandwidth was synchronous in the USA. The telecoms were indifferent to which direction the packets went. The cable companies either through technical limitations were the first to offer asynchronous bandwidth as a product to the masses. Cables companies distribute content and the business model relies on scarcity of access to the content. Their content evolved to leverage centralized advertising model and scarcity of access to content. This was completely different in the USA during the T1, ISDN, and eventually SDSL. I always associate the xDSL with the eternal September of the web and it's content. How one classifies a conspiracy is actually a whole different topic. I would call this more market manipulation.