The Net Neutrality Debate
May. 18th, 2006 06:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerAt the moment there's an argument going on between various operators of internet connections and users of said connections. The operators are "shaping" traffic (i.e. blocking and limiting it) in order to keep their bandwidth bills down and threatening to charge the sources of large bandwidth drains for access to their networks. And by "sources" they they mean Google Video, YouTube and the other places that produce the stuff that users are downloading.
The reason for this is simple - they're terrified to charge users for the bandwidth they use. UK ISPs aren't so bad - most of them have been charging for the amount people download (over a set minimum) for a while now, but US ISPs seem to be so terrified that doing so will cause an outcry that they've decided it's easier for them to go after the suppliers of the goods that attracted users to the internet in the first place.
The answer is, of course, for both suppliers and customers to realise that you get nothing for free, and if you want to download lots of shiny things then you're going to have to pay for it, because the people you're using for your connection sure as hell are.
The reason for this is simple - they're terrified to charge users for the bandwidth they use. UK ISPs aren't so bad - most of them have been charging for the amount people download (over a set minimum) for a while now, but US ISPs seem to be so terrified that doing so will cause an outcry that they've decided it's easier for them to go after the suppliers of the goods that attracted users to the internet in the first place.
The answer is, of course, for both suppliers and customers to realise that you get nothing for free, and if you want to download lots of shiny things then you're going to have to pay for it, because the people you're using for your connection sure as hell are.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 09:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 06:55 pm (UTC)I suspect the main motivation behind bw limiting is more about massively increasing profits and / or compensating for massive incompetency (e.g. BT Broadband who are more expensive and have worse service than most even though they own the entire end to end solution).
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 10:01 pm (UTC)But that's kind of beside the point - yes, they sell it to you as unlimited, but they still have to pay for _their_ bandwidth. Which means that if they're giving you as much as you want then you're getting a much better deal than someone who's only checking their email and reading low-bandwidth sites. Which is the whole reason that the ISPs want to charge video producers to deliver their content - because they aren't charging you the actual costs of your usage.
Oh, and last time I checked there were not ISPs making more than a couple of percent in profits - there's too much competition in the market for any of them to make much on it.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 06:58 pm (UTC)OFCOM has also successfully dealt with some of them that were offering 'unlimited' broadband when in reality it wasn't even slightly unlimited.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 10:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 07:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 10:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 10:16 pm (UTC)back so early??!
no subject
Date: 2006-05-18 09:17 pm (UTC)Also, many of those weighing in on the "you cannot charge us for THIS" side are of the kind that you are well aware that I decry with their "it should all be free, damn business models and capitalism!"