[feikname]

> How could this possibly be zero? If a town's ISP has a bandwidth of 100Gb/s and has a demand of 200Gb/s by their customers, they can:

IMO, if you're selling more than you can provide, you're already doing it wrong...

It's not acceptable to prioritize some content over another when having the appropriate infrastructure would solve the problem.

> invest in bigger infrastructure and pass the cost down to consumers (which is not zero cost as you claim)

People will be paying for the product anyway, I don't see anything wrong with charging the cost of production/maintenance + profits (altough I suspect their profits might way higher than they should, and not being used to improve the ISP's as they should. I do not live in US though), that's what most other sellers around the world do and I really believe it's the most appropriate model.

[patrickaljord]

> People will be paying for the product anyway, I don't see anything wrong with charging the cost of production/maintenance + profits

Have you ever thought that many people are fine with the deal they're currently getting and don't have the money to pay for more? Maybe that's great for rich people, but for lower income folks, the way ISPs optimize bandwidth right now is fine, they've probably done tons of testing to make it the less noticeable possible while providing the best prices for their customers (market at work). Forcing high bandwidth for all people even those that don't care will leave people out of internet connection at all as they won't be able to pay at all. So people won't be able to pay anymore but at least your principles will be respected, sounds like the classical case of unintended consequences of leftists policies that always end up hurting the poorest while giving good conscience and a good deal to the rich. Not a big fan of that kind of things personally.

[lallysingh]

No. My internet is completely useless at peak times - as in even HN won't load. Expecting competence out of ISPs is simply too much.

My ISP is the only game in town for me, and they know that. They have zero incentive to lower prices or raise quality.

[patrickaljord]

Well, if your town has only one ISP it's probably a small town where everything is much cheaper and there is less money to be made. Why would they invest in infrastructure there if they would never recoup the costs? You already get many advantages by living where you live (lower cost of life, probably less air pollution etc). I used to live in a small town in Peru, everything was much cheaper but it was impossible to watch a video on youtube at more than 144p resolution. That's a bargain I was willing to take and never complained about it, life was cheap. If you want better services that costs billions in investment, move to a place where it makes business sense for someone to invest in such infrastructure and don't expect anyone investing free money for you out of their good heart. You wouldn't do it either, why should they? Here's the thing, you will _never_ get better or equal infrastructure and services in a small town than in a big city. Whether it's the diversity of asian food, schools, museums or internet speed. You'll never get it by living in a small town. Want all those fancy things? Move to these big cities and don't ask people to subsidize your small town more than they already do, big cities folks already pay enormous bills each months, they don't need more of it.

[zaarn]

A small town can still service two or more ISPs, the lack of competition is what's ruining it and the lack of NN won't make it a bit better.

You should maybe also remind yourself that some people are not in the position to move around the country. You should not equate your own capabilities in life with those of others.

[patrickaljord]

> You should maybe also remind yourself that some people are not in the position to move around the country.

After living years in Syria and then in Peru, I can say that small towns folks most likely to leave to big cities are not the ones that are well off but the poorest one on the contrary in order to find a job to sustain them. So yeah, I would say it's mostly rich people that can afford to stay in small towns, the rest move to bigger places where there is more chance in finding people willing to invest in them even for low skill workers.

[zaarn]

Some people cannot move. Period. It may be their monetary situation, or something else.

Suggesting that the situation in Syria and Peru is the same as in the US is also rather disingenuous. It is with high probability not.

And even if it was so, does that mean the ISP gets the automatic right to fuck over everyone left because they didn't move? Does that right extend to other things? Should water utility not be provided to them because they didn't move?

[lallysingh]

Nope. I live in a very large NJ suburb of NYC. Only one ISP