Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Apr 2011 10:20 UTC
Internet & Networking You know all that talk about net neutrality in the US? How for instance Verizon and Google want net neutrality to apply only to something they call the 'wired' internet, which is apparently somehow different from the 'mobile' internet? Well, while you Americans are only talking about it, us Dutch are once again way ahead of the curve: the largest of the three main carriers has announced its intention to start charging extra for services like VoIP, instant messaging, Facebook, and so on, with the other two carriers contemplating similar moves. The dark future of the web, right here in my glorified swamp.
Thread beginning with comment 470885
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Oh boy, I'd be pissed off...
by saso on Sat 23rd Apr 2011 12:32 UTC in reply to "Oh boy, I'd be pissed off..."
saso
Member since:
2007-04-18

I work for a mid-sized ISP (a few dozen thousand subscribers) and I can tell you, if we tried to pull this kind of shit here, our customers would basically hang us by the balls. It's equivalent to lowering speeds or raising prices mid-contract - people may be stupid, but they are not *that* stupid. And once they see that you're asking for more money to let them access their beloved FaceTube, which they used to get for the price of their existing contract, you can pretty much spend all the extra money from such a scheme on lawyers, as you'll be flooded with lawsuits.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

As a mid-sized ISP you can't do this, people have choices, but if you were AT&T, or one of the other large carriers with a large base who have no other option, you can pretty much tell your customers to piss up a pole. When they get mad, block any attempts build alternatives with fees, regulations, and paid-for-laws.

Anyway, throttling is a much better way to deal with the issue. Just throttle Facebook and Youtube down to 14.4 modem speeds, and upsell them on a speed package or more expensive plan with expensive prerequisites. To paraphrase a trainer, "If you want them to do something, make the alternative hurt."

Reply Parent Score: 2

saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Even with mid-sized ISPs, there are areas where we have exclusivity. That, however, isn't be point. The point is that even if we were a big carrier, even throttling the sites mentioned would generate so much bad publicity that the brand image damage would by far outweigh potential short-term financial gains. Your short term profits might increase, but sales would decline rapidly after having effectively ruined any goodwill of your company.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Tjebbe Member since:
2007-05-17

Anyway, throttling is a much better way to deal with the issue. Just throttle Facebook and Youtube down to 14.4 modem speeds, and upsell them on a speed package or more expensive plan with expensive prerequisites. To paraphrase a trainer, "If you want them to do something, make the alternative hurt."


No. They should charge for what they deliver, and that charge should be what it costs them plus a profit margin. So they should charge for either traffic or bandwidth, not specific services *that others create*.

One of the problems KPN is having right now is the reduced usage of SMS services, since much cheaper alternatives now exist via Internet. SMS has been wildly overcharged for so long now they've gotten used to what is mostly free money. They want to block SMS-like internet services as well, and not because they take up bandwidth, but just because it competes with their own overcharged services.

Reply Parent Score: 7