6 ms·

ISPs should be allowed to throttle traffic for services. Otherwise, the result is going to be increased costs for all end-users.

wtallis 2y ago
I think you need to provide a lot more explanation and clarification of what you mean; your comment as written sounds like nothing more than a hollow talking point. What kind of throttling in what situations would be prohibited by these regulations and how would that cause increased costs?
- gwbas1c 2y ago
  Maybe DDOS protection? IE: Things that ensure that a malicious user can't negatively impact other users on the network.
  - wtallis 2y ago
    Have you ever seen even a draft of a proposed regulation that didn't already have clear exceptions for that?
Cody-99 2y ago
No they shouldn't. I don't think that logic makes any sense at all. No one is paying increased costs because their neighbor is watching netflix, youtube, or browsing reddit. Users already pay for internet service they shouldn't have to pay again because the ISP wants to be greedy and double dip from fees to avoid throttling.
- theoperagoer 2y ago
  If netflix traffic is straining ISPs to the point of requiring hardware upgrades etc., I think it is fair for ISPs to ask them to pay some of that cost.
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    Their customers already pay the cost. The ISPs offer IP services. The customers on each end pay for it.
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    > If netflix traffic is straining ISPs to the point of requiring hardware upgrades etc., I think it is fair for ISPs to ask them to pay some of that cost. It is fair for ISPs to ask their customers to pay for required upgrades. Netflix's ISPs can ask Netflix. Netflix's customers' ISPs can ask Netflix's customers.
  - Cody-99 2y ago
    It isn't netflix traffic it is ISP customer traffic which they pay for. Hardware upgrade, bandwidth costs, and other operating costs are already paid for by the ISP customers. The ISP should not be able to double dip by charging netflix or the customer a second time. If the ISP isn't able to provide the service they advertised and sold they should be investigated and be issuing refunds at the very least. Can't provide the service you said you could? Maybe don't advertise and defraud customers.
    - theoperagoer 2y ago
      it's not a double-dip. if a single service is behind load problems and causing general service degradation, I think it is fair to throttle that service.
      - Cody-99 2y ago
        It is a double dip. The ISP customer already pays for that bandwidth and internet connection. Asking the customer to pay a second time or asking netflix to pay is clearly double dipping. Trying to call it something else is just silly! >causing general service degradation Customers using their internet service they pay for isn't causing service degradation. If the ISP oversold or lied about being able to provide the service they were selling that is another issue. The response to that shouldn't be charging more for a service customers already pay for.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  They should be able to throttle across the board to load balance. They sell an IP protocol service. They should honor the customer's wishes by delivering those packets fairly, not necessarily reliably.
  - packetlost 2y ago
    They can, and they do. It's called QoS and it's not effected by net neutrality.
    - theoperagoer 2y ago
      They cannot throttle a particular service under NN. That's the problem.
- paulddraper 2y ago
  > No one is paying increased costs because their neighbor is watching netflix, youtube, or browsing reddit Increased bandwidth = Increased costs Who do you think is paying?
  - Cody-99 2y ago
    The ISP customers already paid for that. The ISP customer already paid for the bandwidth, hardware, and all other costs. Not sure why this is confusing for you. The ISP isn't paying more because Bob next door decides to watch netflix for a few hours a night. >Who do you think is paying? The customer..? Are you really confused about this?
    - paulddraper 2y ago
      > already paid In some cases. In other cases, it hasn't even happened yet. > Are you really confused about this? I'm not at all confused. The ISP spends $X to build and maintain infrastructure for Y Gbps internet. Mobile carriers do the same.
      - OkayPhysicist 2y ago
        Yes, and then they charge $Z dollars for a certain bandwidth allotment to each of their customers. It does not cost the ISP more money to route a MB/s to Netflix than it does to route a MB/s to Reddit.
      - Cody-99 2y ago
        >In some cases. In other cases, it hasn't even happened yet. ..? By the point ISP customers receive internet they have either already paid for the service, paid a deposit, or agreed to pay for it the following month like other utilities. In all of these cases by the time the user makes use of their service they have already agreed to pay for the internet service which includes data, hardware, and other infrastructure fees. >The ISP spends $X to build and maintain infrastructure for Y Gbps internet. EXACTLY. You are proving my point! The customer of the ISP has already paid for that. It doesn't cost the ISP any more money if I make use of my service by sending data to netflix, reddit, or whoever! If I watch netflix 12 hours a day it costs the ISP exactly $0 extra dollars. Asking me to pay more money or be throttled is ridiculous. Hell, if you have one of the largest ISPs they pay nothing for any amount of data transfer over their networks anyway so your argument is even weaker lol.
bee_rider 2y ago
ISPs should throttle for network health if necessary. This should occur in a fashion that is fair to users, some services might get hit disproportionately because they consume a lot of bandwidth, but no services should be given an exception just because they happen to be, say, provided by the ISP.

wtallis 2y ago

I think you need to provide a lot more explanation and clarification of what you mean; your comment as written sounds like nothing more than a hollow talking point. What kind of throttling in what situations would be prohibited by these regulations and how would that cause increased costs?

gwbas1c 2y ago
Maybe DDOS protection? IE: Things that ensure that a malicious user can't negatively impact other users on the network.
- wtallis 2y ago
  Have you ever seen even a draft of a proposed regulation that didn't already have clear exceptions for that?

Cody-99 2y ago

No they shouldn't. I don't think that logic makes any sense at all. No one is paying increased costs because their neighbor is watching netflix, youtube, or browsing reddit. Users already pay for internet service they shouldn't have to pay again because the ISP wants to be greedy and double dip from fees to avoid throttling.

theoperagoer 2y ago
If netflix traffic is straining ISPs to the point of requiring hardware upgrades etc., I think it is fair for ISPs to ask them to pay some of that cost.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  Their customers already pay the cost. The ISPs offer IP services. The customers on each end pay for it.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  > If netflix traffic is straining ISPs to the point of requiring hardware upgrades etc., I think it is fair for ISPs to ask them to pay some of that cost. It is fair for ISPs to ask their customers to pay for required upgrades. Netflix's ISPs can ask Netflix. Netflix's customers' ISPs can ask Netflix's customers.
- Cody-99 2y ago
  It isn't netflix traffic it is ISP customer traffic which they pay for. Hardware upgrade, bandwidth costs, and other operating costs are already paid for by the ISP customers. The ISP should not be able to double dip by charging netflix or the customer a second time. If the ISP isn't able to provide the service they advertised and sold they should be investigated and be issuing refunds at the very least. Can't provide the service you said you could? Maybe don't advertise and defraud customers.
  - theoperagoer 2y ago
    it's not a double-dip. if a single service is behind load problems and causing general service degradation, I think it is fair to throttle that service.
    - Cody-99 2y ago
      It is a double dip. The ISP customer already pays for that bandwidth and internet connection. Asking the customer to pay a second time or asking netflix to pay is clearly double dipping. Trying to call it something else is just silly! >causing general service degradation Customers using their internet service they pay for isn't causing service degradation. If the ISP oversold or lied about being able to provide the service they were selling that is another issue. The response to that shouldn't be charging more for a service customers already pay for.
kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
They should be able to throttle across the board to load balance. They sell an IP protocol service. They should honor the customer's wishes by delivering those packets fairly, not necessarily reliably.
- packetlost 2y ago
  They can, and they do. It's called QoS and it's not effected by net neutrality.
  - theoperagoer 2y ago
    They cannot throttle a particular service under NN. That's the problem.
paulddraper 2y ago
> No one is paying increased costs because their neighbor is watching netflix, youtube, or browsing reddit Increased bandwidth = Increased costs Who do you think is paying?
- Cody-99 2y ago
  The ISP customers already paid for that. The ISP customer already paid for the bandwidth, hardware, and all other costs. Not sure why this is confusing for you. The ISP isn't paying more because Bob next door decides to watch netflix for a few hours a night. >Who do you think is paying? The customer..? Are you really confused about this?
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    > already paid In some cases. In other cases, it hasn't even happened yet. > Are you really confused about this? I'm not at all confused. The ISP spends $X to build and maintain infrastructure for Y Gbps internet. Mobile carriers do the same.
    - OkayPhysicist 2y ago
      Yes, and then they charge $Z dollars for a certain bandwidth allotment to each of their customers. It does not cost the ISP more money to route a MB/s to Netflix than it does to route a MB/s to Reddit.
    - Cody-99 2y ago
      >In some cases. In other cases, it hasn't even happened yet. ..? By the point ISP customers receive internet they have either already paid for the service, paid a deposit, or agreed to pay for it the following month like other utilities. In all of these cases by the time the user makes use of their service they have already agreed to pay for the internet service which includes data, hardware, and other infrastructure fees. >The ISP spends $X to build and maintain infrastructure for Y Gbps internet. EXACTLY. You are proving my point! The customer of the ISP has already paid for that. It doesn't cost the ISP any more money if I make use of my service by sending data to netflix, reddit, or whoever! If I watch netflix 12 hours a day it costs the ISP exactly $0 extra dollars. Asking me to pay more money or be throttled is ridiculous. Hell, if you have one of the largest ISPs they pay nothing for any amount of data transfer over their networks anyway so your argument is even weaker lol.

bee_rider 2y ago

ISPs should throttle for network health if necessary. This should occur in a fashion that is fair to users, some services might get hit disproportionately because they consume a lot of bandwidth, but no services should be given an exception just because they happen to be, say, provided by the ISP.