[jwommack]

The primary beneficiaries of this are basically Netflix and Google, no?

My understanding is most of these policies have always been targeted at the large streaming services that are putting the most burden on the networks and who often already have special interconnect agreements.

The claims that these policies would be aimed at small businesses seem largely to have not been realistic.

The whole situation with lying about what you’re ad spend is getting you seems like a much bigger small internet business issue.

[throw0101a]

> My understanding is most of these policies have always been targeted at the large streaming services that are putting the most burden on the networks and who often already have special interconnect agreements.

"large streaming services that are putting the most burden on the networks"?

That is completely non-sensical. It is not streaming services that are creating a burden, it is the ISP's customers. The ISP's customers are asking for the bits. They are using their Internet service / connection to get what they want (video). Is HN 'causing' the traffic to flow over my ISP's pipes when I reply to comments, or is it me (the ISP customer) when I click on "reply"?

The streaming services are not dumping bits on to the network like a chemical plant polluting a river. The streaming services are sending bits that the ISP's customers requested.

If the ISPs can't deliver the traffic that their customers want then they need to architect their network to handle it.

ISPs are selling access to the Internet, streaming service are on the Internet, and so ISPs need provide it or stop advertising that they're providing Internet access.

The streaming services are paying for their Internet connection, and ISP's customers are paying for their Internet connection, and it is the job of the ISP to connect the two.

[moron4hire]

But we (the ISPs) made assumptions about aggregate consumer bandwidth requirements back in the early 2000s and now they're cutting into shareholder value! Would someone please, PLEASE, think of the shareholders?!

[Hikikomori]

There's simply no way for any ISP to allow all customers to use their full bandwidth, that just doesn't work, both technically and with the prices consumers pay. When building (and replacing parts to add capacity) the network ISPs look at current usage, average usage of each customer, account for future growth, etc, results in some cost that ends up as part of what customers has to pay. If traffic increases much more than expected then the upgrade/investment made that was expected to last X years would last years less, so a new upgrade is done which results in increased price for the end customer.

If the new investment was paid in part by Netflix and others like them, as they drive most of the increase in bandwidth, then the cost would be pushed to Netflix customers through Netflix.

Either way, end consumers pay what is needed to upgrade the network, otherwise the network is congested or the ISP goes out of business.

I would argue that ISPs should not have these massive profits, if they do then they are overcharging their customers. And the fix for that is to have actual competition, consumers must have multiple choices, which for the most part the US does not have in the ISP market as you have no sharing of last mile access and block municipal infrastructure at many levels.

[imtringued]

>ISPs are selling access to the Internet, streaming service are on the Internet, and so ISPs need provide it or stop advertising that they're providing Internet access.

How long until Comcast advertises its proprietary Comcast Network?

[majormajor]

If ISPs promised not to try to get into the business of competing with those service providers this would be a stronger argument.

When this arose, it was partly a lever to make their own offerings more attractive.

Turns out they mostly sucked at those offerings and have shut down or spun them off so it's less urgent right now, but don't assume it won't happen again!