Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....but was the poster talking about limits to speed, or limits to max gigs that you can download?
It doesn't matter, the ISP can set whatever limitations they want. NN only applies to those limitations being applied equally to all sites and services. Just so it's clear if you have one slow ass site and one very fast site NN is not going to slow the traffic to the fast site.
Site A can provide 2Mbps, consumer connects at 2Mbps
Site B can provide 10Mbps, consumer connects at 10Mbps
Net Neutrality achieved.
Site A can provide 10Mbps, consumer connects at 10Mbps
Site B can provide 10Mbps, consumer connects at 10Mbps
Net Neutrality achieved.
Site A can provide 30Mbps, consumer connects at 10Mbps
Site B can provide 10Mbps, consumer connects at 10Mbps
Net Neutrality achieved.
Site A can provide 10Mbps, consumer connects at 2Mbps
Site B can provide 10Mbps, consumer connects at 10Mbps
Net Neutrality not achieved.
And Site C provides a kick-ass voip solution (telephony over the Internet) for virtually nothing. If your local Internet providers have their own telephone offering, they can degrade that kick-ass solution if we get rid of Network Neutrality.
There is no free rider, the web site which is on a computer not much different than the one sitting in front of you is connected to the internet typically at a data center. They pay for the bandwidth required to operate that site. On the other end the consumer pays the ISP for the bandwidth they consume.
If your website gets popular and you need more bandwidth you will have to pay for that. If the consumer is using more bandwidth the ISP can charge them for it. The only thing they can't do is charge the consumer more because of the source.
To reiterate again, there is no limitations on the tiers or pricing for what an ISP can charge consumers under NN. the only stipulation to that is the consumer gets equal access to any site or service.
Yes, but if one site uses more bandwidth than other, shouldn't an ISP charge it more or just create a contract to make everybody happy? Netflix has the most subscribers than say "Tube Flicks." What's wrong with Netflix being that it has more money to spend for an ISP to provide content at faster speeds and 4k quality to make everybody happy? It would free up ISPs from having to hike bills for improved infrastructure. And it would end throttling.
And Site C provides a kick-ass voip solution (telephony over the Internet) for virtually nothing. If your local Internet providers have their own telephone offering, they can degrade that kick-ass solution if we get rid of Network Neutrality.
Yes, but if one site uses more bandwidth than other, shouldn't an ISP charge it more or just create a contract to make everybody happy? Netflix has the most subscribers than say "Tube Flicks." What's wrong with Netflix being that it has more money to spend for an ISP to provide content at faster speeds and 4k quality to make everybody happy? It would free up ISPs from having to hike bills for improved infrastructure. And it would end throttling.
People can buy bigger plans if they want to make sure that they get the full capability of Netflix in that sense. Netflix may use more bandwidth on its end, but they (Netflix) are already paying for the capability.
NN is saying that companies must provide all sites within their plan at the same speed that your account allows, like thecoalman’s example. They can’t provide Netflix at speeds lower than other sites or stifle others in favor of Netflix.
Yes, but if one site uses more bandwidth than other, shouldn't an ISP charge it more or just create a contract to make everybody happy?.
Netflix is not the customer of the ISP, the consumer is. If the consumer is using more bandwidth you charge them for it. My electric dryer uses a lot of electric, the electric company doesn't charge Maytag for that. They charge me.
Netflix is not the customer of the ISP, the consumer is. If the consumer is using more bandwidth you charge them for it. My electric dryer uses a lot of electric, the electric company doesn't charge Maytag for that. They charge me.
Eh it works both ways with the ISPs or at least can through the removal of net neutrality.
Netflix is not the customer of the ISP, the consumer is. If the consumer is using more bandwidth you charge them for it. My electric dryer uses a lot of electric, the electric company doesn't charge Maytag for that. They charge me.
Of course Netflix is. ISPs are multi user platforms. They match servers to users just like a browser does. Are we going to now regulate browsers that collude with given websites for faster and fluid matches?
What about mobile OS? Windows OS can't compete with Android or Apple due to the notorious "App Gap." Google reserves its products to Android and Apple. It will not lease with Windows. This discriminates against Windows users. This practice goes against basic NN principles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
