9 ms·

That's always confused me about that argument.. They are getting paid, by their customers!

• trhway 2y ago
  And they are paid for the common carrier service. If they want to be able to slow down some sites - basically it is an editorial action by making some content less available or even de-facto non-available - they should lose the common carrier status with all the consequences of it.
• Yeul 2y ago
  Seems to me American ISPs have a lot of political power. Not only do they want to extort money they also don't want to upgrade their infrastructure to give the service that the consumer wants.
  • rtkwe 2y ago
    They're quite powerful and get tons of grant money to extend their networks and provide service they never actually provide.
  • autoexec 2y ago
    They don't want to upgrade their infrastructure to give the service that the consumer paid for and they themselves advertise.
• Hikikomori 2y ago
  They're paid but what you pay is based on oversubscription, everyone not using their connection at the same time, as building a network to support that would be much more costly.
  • adriancr 2y ago
    Oversubscription is an ISP trick to make more money. People do pay for a certain bandwidth. They should be able to get it. Same thing with overbooking on airplanes. You paid for a seat you should be able to use it. Your argument wouldn't work there either.
    • Hikikomori 2y ago
      Its a cornerstone of building cost efficient networks. People pay for a certain sized pipe, what they pay also covers the rest of the ISPs networks and costs. With no oversubscription the ISP would need maybe 20-30x more infrastructure, do you think it would have an impact on what you pay? Not sure why I have to say this, but, networks are not airplanes.
      • rockskon 2y ago
        Utter nonsense. Network tech hasvimproved by orders of magnitude over the past decade to let ISPs transmit more data than ever for cheaper than ever. Oversubscription is not the cost-restrictive mandate it once was.
        • Hikikomori 2y ago
          And last mile access didn't improve? Not oversubscribing is a cost multiplier at every level. 1 million 1 Gbit customers in a city is going to need 1000 100Gbit connections out of that city and the same for transit, and that will have no impact on pricing? And everything is on average used at 1% of capacity.
          • michaelt 2y ago
            If my ISP can only afford to supply me with 1TB of transfer at 1Gbit, that's fine. They can put it in the adverts, the contracts, and the pricing. For customers who want 10TB of transfer, they can offer a higher cost option. And if they choose to gamble, advertising and entering into contracts promising "unlimited data", which they think will be more profitable across their entire customer base? Then they've got to do supply what they promised in the adverts. They chose to gamble that way, and if they lose money gambling that's their business.
            • Hikikomori 2y ago
              You have that on mobile subscriptions usually, heavy users pay more and low usage users are not subsidizing them. I take you are fine with paying 10x or even more for your no oversubscription Internet connection then? Oversubscription is not gambling. The way it works after your last mile connection is that ISPs look at link usage in their network, city level distribution, city to city, transit, peering, etc, once it reaches 60-80% utilization at peak you start looking at adding more capacity. Bad ISPs (most US ISPs) will let this go too far though.