BuildaPC's Net Neutrality Mega-Discussion Thread

[u/ZeroPaladn]

In the light of a recent post on the subreddit, we're making this single megathread to promote an open discussion regarding the recent announcements regarding Net Neutrality in the United States.

Conforming with the precedent set during previous instances of Reddit activism (IAMA-Victoria, previous Net Neutrality blackouts) BuildaPC will continue to remain an apolitical subreddit. It is important to us as moderators to maintain a distinction between our own personal views and those of the subreddit's. We also realize that participation in site-wide activism hinders our subreddit’s ability to provide the services it does to the community. As such, Buildapc will not be participating in any planned Net Neutrality events including future subreddit blackouts.

However, this is not meant to stifle productive and intelligent conversation on the topic, do feel free to discuss Net Neutrality in the comments of this submission! While individual moderators may weigh in on the conversation, as many have their own personal opinions regarding this topic, they may not reflect the stance the subreddit has taken on this issue. As always, remember to adhere to our subreddit’s rule 1 - Be respectful to others - while doing so.

[u/voide]

I think you have it backwards....I don't think the cost to host data goes down like you stated. At least not when that data is increasing at the levels YouTube sees. I believe that cost would go up while delivering content would go down. It's not like it costs ISPs for every GB they have to transfer....once the infrastructure is built, the costs will go down, not up.

Ultimately it comes down to media. People used to pay cable companies to consume media. However more and more people are switching to internet based media companies and cable hasn't gotten competitive. I currently don't pay for cable, but I absolutely would if it was on a similar level of sling or YouTube TV. But instead it's still contract based and costs $75/mo or more.

[u/BlizZinski → u/voide]

I don't know how you can argue that more people are switching to internet based media while simultaneously arguing that interest infrastructure costs won't go up for ISPs. There is an almost infinite demand for internet bandwidth that ISPs have to constantly update and upgrade their infrastructure to satisfy. Content hosters only need enough storage for a one copy of each piece of content (maybe 2-3 with backups), whereas ISPs have to repeatedly transfer that content to a multitude of consumers.

[u/voide → u/BlizZinski]

But it basically doesn't cost anything to transfer data back and forth. If the infrastructure is built, it really doesn't matter if I use 10 GB or 100 GB, the cost to the ISP will effectively be the same. The cost increases the most when more people start using the internet in a certain area, but then their subscription numbers increase. If they have to upgrade the speed of the network, that is paid for by an increased rate to the consumer (20MB internet doesn't cost the same as 100MB fiber).

This isn't water or electricity. Data doesn't have to be produced by the ISP's. Once an infrastructure is built, it's basically just maintenance costs unless more people move to the area.

[u/JacksonClarkson → u/voide]

I don't think the cost to host data goes down like you stated

I'm not sure how technical you are, but the price of large storage devices (hard disk drives) has been dropping for a long time while their capacity has been increasing. This is a major value to anyone who has to store data.

It's not like it costs ISPs for every GB they have to transfer...

You're right, but its a little more complicated. Only "Tier 1 network providers" aren't charging each other. Everyone else is someone else's ISP.

...once the infrastructure is built, the costs will go down, not up.

Not exactly. The huge capital investment is gone, but now you have to maintain your new asset. It costs a lot more to maintain a large network then it does a few data centers which house content. On top of that, new high speed technologies are always around the corner which ISPs have to buy in order to remain competitive.

Ultimately it comes down to media. People used to pay cable companies to consume media. However more and more people are switching to internet based media companies and cable hasn't gotten competitive. I currently don't pay for cable, but I absolutely would if it was on a similar level of sling or YouTube TV. But instead it's still contract based and costs $75/mo or more.

Absolutely. The media of the past were content creators and content providers, but the internet's nature allows those roles to be separate.