4 ms·
Well, in short, any web site with any money to pay the ISPs is likely already running on a CDN that's been paying the ISPs for a decade. The portion of that mar
by exelius 13y ago
Well, in short, any web site with any money to pay the ISPs is likely already running on a CDN that's been paying the ISPs for a decade. The portion of that market that's not yet monetized is likely very small. Besides, slowing down general-purpose web traffic makes it look like your service just totally sucks ass.
But more generally, slow-loading websites make the ISP's service look shitty. There's almost no cost for them to just QoS the low-bandwidth stuff up and it makes people think their service is better.
- orthecreedence 13y ago> But more generally, slow-loading websites make the ISP's service look shitty Exactly, so people will just leave that ISP and sign up with one that doesn't throttle traffic. Except most people have only one ISP in their area. Yay free market!
- exelius 13y agoEven in a truly free market, most areas would only have one ISP. See how Verizon and AT&T have dramatically scaled back or stopped their FiOS/U-Verse rollout plans. If a company with easements and existing infrastructure (and thus lower costs) has decided it can't justify the investment, how would anyone else?
- orthecreedence 13y agoI was saying "Yay free market" as in "a truly free market is a bad idea as seen by local ISP monopolies," not as in "our free market has failed us and needs to be freer." In a truly free market, there would be one company that owns everything, including infrastructure. Not a world I'd like to live in.
- randac 13y agoYou only need look outside the US to see that's garbage.