4 ms·
Rare comparative W for American ISPs?
by benced 11mo ago
Rare comparative W for American ISPs?
- aidenn0 11mo agoI think Comcast charges for peering as well (but not through an intermediary).
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- stego-tech 11mo agoNot really, as US ISPs have been repeatedly trying to game the system into becoming landlords for decades. The difference is, ironically, their own self-imposed monopolies: Comcast may be a T1 ISP, but they’re largely a monopoly in the markets they serve. Same goes for Verizon, Spectrum, Cox, TDS, etc. The end result is a sort of “forced cooperation” with each other, though occasionally one will try to extort the others for cash (I seem to recall L3 and Cogent both engaging in this bullshit around the time streaming video got big). Companies are extractive by nature, and they will always try to find new ways of squeezing blood from a stone absent regulations saying otherwise (and suitable punishments ensuring anyone caught violating them is crippled in the marketplace, if not outright destroyed). This has been going on for decades and will continue absent regulatory intervention. Just look at how the US Electrical grid bills to see how this could end up (higher prices, bullshit fees, redundant billing).
- rsingel 11mo agoCalifornia's net neutrality law bans these kinds of paid interconnections, but they likely exist as all these deals are wrapped in 15 layers of NDAs
- stego-tech 11mo agoExactly. Regulations without suitable punishments and investigatory powers are essentially only barriers to new entrants, not deterrents of bad behavior.
- inemesitaffia 11mo agoCalifornia bans "fast lanes" and service plan bundles i.e Facebook and YouTube internet plans. No one's allowing you to plug X x 100G into their eyeball network for free