Hacker News Reader

Comment by duke_sam | Hacker News Reader

Is it me or is the ISP business getting steadily more anti-customer? Between trying to double charge for bandwidth (charge me a monthly fee and then charge company X for access to me) and attempting to push through lower and lower caps. I understand the increasing costs of infrastructure to provide for users streaming content but would this not be part of their business plans and budgeted for? Or did they expect everybody to continue using the internet like it was 2000? I know the service was always sold on the assumption that the majority of people are low bandwidth users but can ISPs really get this defensive when people start trying to get what they pay for?

Also SMS still takes the cake for most crazily overpriced communication medium, over $1000 per Mb.

View on HN

It has nothing to do with the bandwidth costs to Bell or Rogers.

It has everything to do with customers beginning to establish the habit of getting their TV episodes via the internet instead of paying Bell or Rogers to deliver those via satellite or cable.

If customers are allowed to establish that habit, Bell's satellite TV business is DEAD. Every time someone writes an article about how you can drop your cable or satellite package and get all your TV programs from services X, Y and Z, Bell executives throw up a little in their mouths.

That's what Bell is afraid of, not the (tiny) incremental bandwidth charges as overall usage increases year over year.

Thus, unlimited internet must be discouraged. Thus, bandwidth caps.

Bell doesn't offer unlimited bandwidth at ANY price.

I think a big part of this, in the US at least, is that ISPs are monopolies that can do whatever they want to their customers. We granted telecoms monopoly power back before deregulation became popular, and those monopolies have carried over to the internet. But since the general trend over the past 20-30 years has been to remove existing regulations and not add new ones, there are few laws on the books to protect consumers in the realm of new technology. This is, I think, often a good thing in competitive markets, but when the service providers have monopolies, deregulation may not be the greatest.

Another part of it is that cable companies/telcos already provide content for a fee that many content providers provide on the internets for free. Hence, content providers cut into their supposed bottom-line.

Content providers piggy-back on the ISPs in markets within which the ISP has already entered: one would expect the ISP, as a local monopoly, to exercise market power to force exit of the content providers.

That's precisely the catalyst. The ISPs have finally figured out that their high-profit communications and video 'features' are going to be destroyed by IP alternatives and they'll become dumb commodity pipes. So they're trying to jack up the price of bits to compensate.

Time for the content providers (Google, HN) to invest in ISPs?

As an Internet user I've never felt Net Neutrality was about the current content providers. For me it's always been about the next Google/Netflix/Youtube. i.e. The companies that can't possibly afford to strike those deals.

And Google itself has shown that it's perfectly willing to strike deals to protect its own traffic and throw everyone else under the bus along the way. (What do we really think that Verizon deal was about?) If they bought into several major ISPs, I'm not sure the situation would be much improved.

The real problem is that their regulated/colluded monopolies.

Don't forget market saturation. We are nearing the point where we are getting all of the customers we are going to get. I'm sure there are one or two broadband holdouts clinging to dial-up or just going to the public library, but largely, telcos and cablecos already have all of the customers they are going to get. In essence, the field is dead and utterly useless to investors who expect a large, fast, quick return.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com