Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by oldsklgdfth 3117 days ago
I don't entirely understand the issue, but something tells me that it has little to do with having the best possible internet.

If a company needs a lot of bandwidth don't they pay mre for it? Why would you charge me for wanting to use youtube? This is my very simplistic understanding of the current state of things.
2 comments
rjbwork 3117 days ago
An ISP's job is to get data someone is sending me to me, and vice versa, their ISP's's job is to get data i am sending to them to them.

Why should I have to pay my ISP and theirs for the connection not to suck? They pay transit providers for us, and peer with other networks to facilitate that job. Now they want a bigger slice of the pie.

link
CodeWriter23 3117 days ago
Yes, currently the “company” pays once to the origin provider. Under the repeal, the “company” could end up paying every carrier between their gear and their customer. This despite the fact that the customer paid for “unlimited” internet already.

Imagine having a delivery component to a business. Currently, the company supposedly pays taxes to pay for the roads. Now imagine cities using the plate readers at every major intersection to levy additional tolls for every segment of the road network used by their delivery vehicles.

Now imagine cities granted cheap rights of way for the roads owned by the public to Comcast. And now Comcast is collecting a rent of their own choosing from every delivery truck that drives past a plate reader. And that’s what repealing Net Neutrality will do.

link