[theoperagoer]

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

[Cody-99]

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]

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]

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.

[paulddraper]

> 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?

[bee_rider]

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]

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]

Maybe DDOS protection? IE: Things that ensure that a malicious user can't negatively impact other users on the network.