Last time we saw this, it was seen as a transparent ploy by incumbent ISPs double-dipping. First they make their direct customer pay for the full bandwidth once, then they make the other side pay for full bandwidth a second time.
Isn’t it mostly understood that when you pay for say 1Gb/s internet you’re not going to use full throttle 24/7? If you had all your neighbors running ifperf simultaneously you could cripple your ISP. Cars have top speeds >100mph but obviously this would cause pandemonium if everyone obliged.
Playing Devil’s advocate, but the ISP’s are seeing a higher base 24/7 usage floor with streaming and are trying to make the economics work.
> Or they could, you know, offer smaller speeds or higher prices.
And then one conglomerate who can afford to burn the money offers unlimited for less than other ISPs are offering metered connections, they all go broke/get acquired and people whinge that there's not enough choice when it comes to ISPs
They're already charging both sides - the consumer streaming a movie has to pay for his bandwidth, and Netflix's server uploading the movie stream pays for its bandwidth. Now the ISPs want to be paid a 3rd time??
6 comments
[ 7.9 ms ] story [ 38.0 ms ] threadPlaying Devil’s advocate, but the ISP’s are seeing a higher base 24/7 usage floor with streaming and are trying to make the economics work.
Or they could, you know, offer smaller speeds or higher prices.
And then one conglomerate who can afford to burn the money offers unlimited for less than other ISPs are offering metered connections, they all go broke/get acquired and people whinge that there's not enough choice when it comes to ISPs
And calling it unlimited vs. metered is deceptive. ISPs can (and do) offer lower bandwidths (usually called "unlimited") instead of metering.