Well the bandwidth capping and net neutrality discussions are completely separate, but both are interesting. How do you want to approach the subject? Its a wide reaching topic.
I am Pro caps, as long as they are reasonable. They should effect no more then the upper 3-4% of the user base. I see it as supply and demand. Demand is increasing faster then the cost of supply. Not to say the cost of bandwidth has increased, because internally it has decreased by alot, but the cost alot of ISP's are investing into their infrastructure has increased in the last 10 years. IPv6, DOCSIS 3.0, new ADSL technology,etc. Now granted, in a perfect world, the decrease in over head would make up for the increase in investment, but thats not how companies see it. If profits didn't increase with investment, it would be alot harder to sell the idea of investing. So when ISP's put money into a system, they want to find ways to get more money out of it. Now that can be with price hikes, but that has a negative effect on total numbers of customers. So they find ways to increase profits with the benefits gained by the upgrades. This is being done by making their network more efficient. If 2% of their users are taking up 80% of their bandwidth, that is not efficient. I am just pulling those numbers from thin air, but you get my point. So I see the caps like a tax in the rich. Not only does it make more money for the ISP but it free's up bandwidth for the average user, in essence, giving them a possible increase in speed. Just like a tax on the rich gets the government the money it needs, it also leaves some left over for tax breaks for the rest of us. Granted, this is a vast simplification on both front. I also respect the valid opinion of people who are Anti caps, (and anti tax increases for that matter) but I use it to state my point.
As for Net Neutrality..your going to have to give me some context on that one. Thats like saying "Hey, how do you feel about freedom?" Heh
Author
Topic: OT Conversations regarding not much or nothing or something... (Read 1228883 times)