Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
My thoughts were that there is now nothing to keep Comcast from throttling other big sites then approaching them and saying, "You can stay how you are and some users might find your site a little slow, or you can pay to connect directly into our network."
|
While I concede your point that it could become a slippery slope, I think this is a resource management issue more than it is net neutrality. If someone is using a shared hosting resource, and it effects the rest of the node, you typically need to upgrade or go to a dedicated server. The same can be said for a shared vps environment. If someone is being DDoS'd and taking a lot of resources, the same can be said. You would need to pay more because your using up a lot of resources, and it's impacting other clients on the network.
Could this concept be abused trying to force everyone over a threshold to pay more? Sure.
However, it could also be that you choose to stay on the same network as everyone else and be throttled from the sounds of it. You then do not have to pay more for the service, however it will impact your users and their experience on your service. You have to decided what is better for your business and other clients. As I said, it's a slippery slope on where that line is drawn, however I think in this case, it's more about user experience and resource management than it is about a telco trying to skirt net neutrality.
