4 ms·

As usual I think the politicians fail to see/understand again how this can epically backfire: Example: Google pays your ISP to be faster then the competition. N

As usual I think the politicians fail to see/understand again how this can epically backfire: Example: Google pays your ISP to be faster then the competition. Now the ISP has a free "specialized service", and competition goes down.

Retric 13y ago
I agree that it's less than ideal but an ISP can always get priority access to there internal network because it's closer to there customers. As long as they need to slow down the entire internet rather than slowing down service X then a customer will complain to the ISP that the internet is slow vs thinking service X is slow. It prevents optimizing things like speed test.net which is vary common.
- Qantourisc 13y ago
  Not when you only have a few high-bandwith providers for some content. One will be the faster then the normal-speed rest. But the consumer will see this as service X is slow, and the fastest one is best.
  - Retric 13y ago
    If you have a low latency 20mibt connection to the internet then ALL video is fast. Below that you might have a point. However, this says an ISP can only change bandwidth and latency so if you allow one high bandwidth activity say downloading MMO's then must allow all high bandwidth activity. If you have low latency for gaming then you also have low latency for websites etc. Sure, an ISP may simply chose not to offer high bandwidth to the internet but that's a much harder sell to there customers. And long term laws can change if companies start abusing them.
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      > If you have a low latency 20mibt connection to the internet then ALL video is fast. Just because they sell you a 20Mbit connection doesn't mean you'll always get 20Mbit out of it. Suppose that during peak hours you only get 4Mbit because the ISP's uplink is saturated. Obviously customers would complain...unless the ISP offers extremely low prices to Google, Dropbox, Netflix, etc. to get them all on the pay to play plan and bypass the bottleneck. If the sites 90% of the customers use 90% of the time are fast, the customers will blame the remaining sites for being slow, which forces the sites to pay the ISP. Meanwhile the ISP can raise prices on existing "customers" like Netflix one at a time until they're all paying monopoly rents to the ISP.
masklinn 13y ago
Comments on a previous discussion[0] noted that the bill's qualification of "specialised service" wouldn't allow for that: > (15) "specialised service" means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service; [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7415885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7415885

Retric 13y ago

I agree that it's less than ideal but an ISP can always get priority access to there internal network because it's closer to there customers. As long as they need to slow down the entire internet rather than slowing down service X then a customer will complain to the ISP that the internet is slow vs thinking service X is slow. It prevents optimizing things like speed test.net which is vary common.

Qantourisc 13y ago
Not when you only have a few high-bandwith providers for some content. One will be the faster then the normal-speed rest. But the consumer will see this as service X is slow, and the fastest one is best.
- Retric 13y ago
  If you have a low latency 20mibt connection to the internet then ALL video is fast. Below that you might have a point. However, this says an ISP can only change bandwidth and latency so if you allow one high bandwidth activity say downloading MMO's then must allow all high bandwidth activity. If you have low latency for gaming then you also have low latency for websites etc. Sure, an ISP may simply chose not to offer high bandwidth to the internet but that's a much harder sell to there customers. And long term laws can change if companies start abusing them.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    > If you have a low latency 20mibt connection to the internet then ALL video is fast. Just because they sell you a 20Mbit connection doesn't mean you'll always get 20Mbit out of it. Suppose that during peak hours you only get 4Mbit because the ISP's uplink is saturated. Obviously customers would complain...unless the ISP offers extremely low prices to Google, Dropbox, Netflix, etc. to get them all on the pay to play plan and bypass the bottleneck. If the sites 90% of the customers use 90% of the time are fast, the customers will blame the remaining sites for being slow, which forces the sites to pay the ISP. Meanwhile the ISP can raise prices on existing "customers" like Netflix one at a time until they're all paying monopoly rents to the ISP.

masklinn 13y ago

Comments on a previous discussion[0] noted that the bill's qualification of "specialised service" wouldn't allow for that: > (15) "specialised service" means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service; [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7415885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7415885