[Jonty30]

Basically companies want to limit how much bandwidth and speed they will give you for what you are paying, including the ability to slow down your ability to surf the net unless you’re willing to pay extra for the speed you are currently receiving.

I don’t have a problem with them limiting how much internet I can access unless I pay more, but they want to limit how fast my bandwidth unless I pay more. This is an artificial limitation, not one inherent within the infrastructure that currently being used.

[Steve_Seattle]

Thanks. Apparently this is a separate issue from the controversy about the US relinquishing control of the Internet to an international body.

[freerepublicchat]

Basically companies want to limit how much bandwidth and speed they will give you for what you are paying, including the ability to slow down your ability to surf the net unless you’re willing to pay extra for the speed you are currently receiving.

Companies ALREADY do this.

Verizon's Fios service, for example, has many tiers, from 15Mbps all the way to 250Mbps and higher. Anyone paying for 15Mbps is already being "slowed down", even when surplus bandwidth is available.

But it's not a problem and it makes complete economic sense.

It's a way of getting "elite" users to pay a premium for more while still allowing regular users to pay less to get basic service. It's a form of discriminatory pricing and you see it in most industries. In the book business, you have hardcover books and paperbacks. In the computer industry you have very fast CPUs and slower budget CPUs. In jet travel, you have first class and coach.

Consider CPUs. Suppose 1 million CPUs will sell at $600/CPU but only 500,000 at $1000/CPU.

At $600/CPU, total sales are $600 million. At $1000/CPU total sales are $500 million.

BUT, if the fastest processors are sold at $1000/CPU and slower CPUs are sold at $600/CPU, then the total revenue is $800 million. That might be the difference between making a profit and losing money.

The same sort of thing happens when selling internet connectivity.

[The Duke]

As I understand it net neutrality impacts the costs/services for those providing services over the Internet. In other words, it cuts Verizon, Comcast, Brighthouse, etc in on Netflix's, Hulu’s, etc. action. In other words it's Redbox’s best friend.

[jsanders2001]

> I don’t have a problem with them limiting how much internet I can access unless I pay more, but they want to limit how fast my bandwidth unless I pay more. This is an artificial limitation, not one inherent within the infrastructure that currently being used.

Sort of has the same vibe as blackmail ...

[bert]

I think Charter communications already does that

[palmer]

but they want to limit how fast my bandwidth unless I pay more.

As they should. Either you pay more or Netflix pays more or both.