6door74 wrote:
rk911 wrote:
6door74 wrote:
rk911 wrote:
even IF some of the bandwidth providers do establish a “fast lane” for high bandwidth users like streamers and gamers why shouldn’t that type of access cost more? supply and demand. and what makes the objectors believe that an economy lane for low bandwidth users wouldn’t be created? marketing.
The issue is without the net neutrality, the internet provider can give you slower speeds if you want to stream from netflix as opposed to their partner, hulu (just using those as an example). So you're forced to use hulu or potentially deal with a slower speed and/or pay more for higher speed, to watch your preferred content on netflix. That's more the issue than paying extra for being a heavy bandwidth user.
ok, so? there was no indication that providers were about to do that two years ago. if some do then supply and demand will come into play. there is no ‘right’ to the internet and no reason for the feds to get involved.
Again, I'm not talking about supply and demand. I don't have any problem with heavy users paying more than those who aren't. I DO have a problem with paying more for netflix than hulu just because one is favored by my internet provider. If it takes up the same amount of bandwidth, why should my service provider choose to slow one down or charge me more? That's not supply and demand.
Again, I'm just using netflix and hulu to illustrate my point. There are other less known services who definitely wouldn't get a fair shake in a situation like that.
i disagree. it is a supply and demand. your ISP wants to charge you more for hulu than another ISP...make a change. the new ISP wants to charge more for Netflix than another ISP. another ISP will cut a deal with both or offer other incentives...Hulu, Netflix and others won't stand still. IF any of this happens it will all shake itself out. but because our political class believes the world is about to end i predict legislation will be introduced to regulate the net. THAT will be a disaster.
