News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cato Institute: The Case Against Net Neutrality by wtallis on Thursday December 23, 2010 @03:58AM (#2033958)
The problem isn't so much that Comcast et al. want to offer packages 3, 4, and 5, it's that they want to discontinue packages 1 and 2 and replace them with crippled packages at the same price, with premium charges for YouTube, etc.

"Why should bandwidth hogging protocol users hog all the bandwidth?" Why don't ISPs simply charge by the megabyte, so that by the time they have too many bandwidth hogs on their network, they're bringing in enough money to afford network upgrades? "Bandwidth" isn't some fixed resource. If there's demand for more, the suppliers can provide more by either laying extra cables or upgrading the equipment at the ends of their fibers, and this kind of reaction can happen on the timescale of months, which makes it pretty fluid given that consumers also pay by the month.

Re:Cato Institute: The Case Against Net Neutrality by grandalf on Thursday December 23, 2010 @12:43PM (#2035137)
True, but it's more a case of a small number of users resulting in tremendous loss of profits.

Suppose you open a restaurant and offer free bread and some customers come in and buy the cheapest item on the menu and eat $10 worth of bread. It's just not sustainable.

Re:Cato Institute: The Case Against Net Neutrality by brazzy on Friday December 24, 2010 @04:02AM (#2036924)
Which is why no restaurant claims to offer unlimited free bread.

There is no "but". If it were actually true that a small number of users consume so much bandwidth that it causes "tremendous loss of profits", then ISPs should drop the "unlimited bandwidth" claim.

But they want to keep that because it's just so nice for marketing.

What they really want is to claim "unlimited bandwidth" without actually offering it.