- Last Active
Settle down gang. No need to be at each other's throats just yet.
The answer is an incentive to increase competition that results in more bandwidth, making the throttling issue moot. If providers are forced to subsidize heavy users that pay the same price as light users, I don't see expansion happening. In fact, there is evidence that Net Neutrality did slow fiber expansion significantly. We all pay for the electricity we use, and aren't on a flat fee where we pay the same price for widely differing usage right?
Throttling already occurs without penalty in places like airplanes and airports where bandwidth is restricted. It makes sense to do so in an environment where one person face timing or streaming kills all connectivity for others doesn't it? I despise trying to get time critical information at places like airports on my connection where the network is so bogged down that nothing gets through. I walk down the terminal and see twenty people face timing/streaming. There has to be a balance somewhere.
I really don't think that this ruling is going to have the effect that many purport, but you might start seeing heavy users pay a little more, while the market begins to demand more competition. In the end, the market will win, and we'll have better speeds. The way it is now, there is little incentive for providers to make that happen.