[dinoleif]

In what way are customers "held hostage"?

If you sign up for an internet plan that promises not to throttle certain sites and then that provider throttles those sites, you can sue them.

If you sign up for an internet plan that makes no such promises, why would one expect anything different?

This may sound like a harsh reality, but it's called "taking personal responsibility" and "voting with your feet". Switch to another internet provider.

The appeal to paternalistic regulatory bodies to restrict the choices of other consumers (who may want to purchase cheaper, more restricted internet plans) is creepy.

[charonn0]

> Switch to another internet provider.

That's not an option for most Americans, and part of the reason why net neutrality is necessary.

[dinoleif]

This is plainly false.

Most households have multiple internet providers.

[so33]

In Ontario, there are three major internet providers: Rogers, Bell, and Telus. For the longest time, their plans (all of them) had bandwidth caps, something that would be unheard of in the United States. They used to be extremely ungenerous, about 100 GB a month or worse. (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/04/how-internet-use...)

The other internet providers, Bell and Telus, had an opportunity to distinguish themselves here.

But they didn’t. They had bandwidth caps too. There was a smaller ISP (TekSavvy) which offered 300GB bandwidth caps (still ridiculous by US standards), which they could offer as a result of a law requiring Canadian ISPs to resell infrastructure to smaller providers (meaning TekSavvy has access to all of Rogers’ customer base). Around 2015, Rogers started introducing plans with higher bandwidth caps, and bandwidth restrictions have relaxed (but they still exist).

It took pretty much a decade for innovation-stifling bandwidth restrictions to stop being a thing in Ontario, and arguably only because of a law (i.e. government interference) letting smaller ISPs use big ISP infrastructure.

[Fnoord]

100 GB/month doesn't tell us much if you don't include a date for context (the Ars article is from 2011).

I think that if you are in a market with caps, and you go offer a subscription without a cap, you end up with a bunch of subscribers who will saturate their line. So it makes more sense to slowly compete on increasing the caps, quite like we see in the mobile industry as well. Plus, network capacity goes up (hence I said date context matters).

Personally, I got nothing against caps, as long they're clear and the subscriber is informed about it beforehand. A FUP has a cap as well. If you download 24/7/365.25 on broadband then many ISPs will complain. Not all, but many will. Although nowadays less than say in the 90s or 00s.

[lovehashbrowns]

Phew! That's so true. Before Google Fiber came to my apartment complex, I only had Time Warner if I wanted broadband internet. The option aside from that was 56k or satellite. So many options.

In Chicago, I had Comcast and AT&T DSL. Neither was very fast, and Comcast was really expensive (something like $90+ if I wanted decent speeds). Again, very fortunate of me. I chose to go with AT&T because I was a poor college student. Trying to watch Youtube on that was a complete nightmare. I was also very unlucky if one of my online courses required watching an instructional video or a lecture.

So many options! Expensive and slow internet vs. cheap and really crappy internet. Both with data caps, awful customer service, constant connection issues, expensive+aging equipment--gee wiz we're so lucky.

[eregorn]

I'm wondering where you are getting your information from. Particularly, when I search my own zip on ISP search sites, I get anywhere from 4-6 providers even though I only have 2 options. There's possibly a discrepancy between what's reported and what customers actually have.

[dboreham]

From the ISP lobbyist she works for?

[charonn0]

If you count sub-broadband connections, sure.

[dinoleif]

"not an option for most Americans"

OK.

[charonn0]

Even the FCC, back when it was at least nominally run for the benefit of the American people, didn't consider sub-broadband good enough to qualify as competition.

[swozey]

Let me guess, you live in some mecca of ISP options like the Valley? Because the rest of us don't. I live in a major tech city of 1mil+ pop, to the point that a quarter of the city has Google Fiber, and the only ISP options my neighborhood has (12 miles from downtown and in a vastly tech area) is 1 Cable provider, 1 DSL provider, and Directv.

That means my speed options are 300mbps, 3, or 1.5 with 400ms latency.

Such great "options" if my cable provider decides to upcharge me now.

[orthecreedence]

> live in some mecca of ISP options like the Valley

Oh man, I wish. I live in the heart of SF and the only option I have is Comcast. I suppose I could try Monkeybrains, but I'd have to get landlord approval and that may be an issue.

The point is, in the US, even in the tech capital of the world, we are still encumbered by private ownership of internet infrastructure.

It's fucking pathetic.

To be clear, I'm a supporter of Net Neutrality, but more so a more built-out municipal fiber system across the US.

[swozey]

Yeah. It's an absolute slap in the face to be told "Just pick another provider, you have 2 alternatives!" when those alternatives are 10x slower and my main source is already below the fastest in the city (gig). It's like telling me to turn in my cell phone for a rotary land line or to just suck it up.

Internet should've been made a utility a decade ago.

[vilmosi]

I highly doubt any Internet plan will list all the websites they won't throttle and it's unreasonable to expect them to do so.

Would you be happy if your electricity provider was free to block access to, I don't know, refrigerators?

[steveadoo]

There IS no other provider. At least not for me. And pretty much everyone I know.

We wouldn't need net neutrality if the ISPs didn't have a monopoly.

[so33]

Customers are “held hostage” because often there is only one choice of ISP. They may not offer throttling.

How can you sue your ISP if there is a clause that you must go through binding arbitration instead?

How can you switch to another internet provider if AT&T is the only game in town?

[tpolischuk]

A huge portion of the country does not have access to multiple ISPs or has access to only 2. Capitalism doesn't work without competition. It's also naive to assume everyone can just afford hiring lawyers.

[berbec]

I live in New York City on the island of Manhattan. I have 1 (one) ISP choice. Would you suggest I switch to cellular?