Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Xophmeister 3980 days ago 

    What I could see happening is premium content being bundled
    by ISPs. Pay for X package from Y ISP, get content from A, B
    and C websites. Kind-of like how TV channels are bundled.
That's a different can of worms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
1 comments
jff 3980 days ago
People need to stop using "net neutrality" whenever the idea of paying for something on the Internet comes up.
link
mokus 3980 days ago
Paying _ISPs_ for content is exactly what net neutrality is about. I already pay my ISP to deliver bits. I'm not giving them a microcent more for the privilege of having all content that isn't in some "package" blocked or throttled.
link
jff 3980 days ago
The GP didn't say anything about blocking or throttling, merely that you'd pay to have access to content you wouldn't get otherwise and that ISPs could offer subscription bundles to their customers--pay $5/month and get unlimited access to the NYT and a bunch of other paywalled news sites.
link
mokus 3980 days ago
Ah, I see. In that case, yes - there's no connection to net neutrality as long as they don't penalize anyone in any way for buying those subscriptions directly from the sites themselves (EDIT: or other sources... if i buy a sub on my ISP it should still be valid when I visit my parents who have a different ISP, etc).
link
Xophmeister 3979 days ago
That's a fair point: I didn't read the original suggestion to mean, "Your ISP acts as an agent to manage your paid site subscriptions" -- which, you're right, has nothing to do with net neutrality -- I just instantly jumped to the blocking/throttling conclusion.
link