
Net Neutrality – The End of Google’s Biggest Subsidy - olivermarks
https://tomluongo.me/2017/12/16/net-neutrality-the-end-of-googles-biggest-subsidy/
======
Hnrobert42
This article seems to think content providers have been on an unlimited data
plan and the elimination of net neutrality means they must pay per byte.

That is not the case. Netflix and YouTube _already_ pay in proportion for the
bandwidth they consume.

Aside from being factually incorrect, the article's incoherent, rambling style
is awful.

~~~
olivermarks
I also read this 2009 article about youtube's bandwidth costs earlier
[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2009/04/...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2009/04/do_you_think_bandwidth_grows_on_trees.html)

------
thisisit
I am sorry but this is less of an article than a rant. A poor one at that.

First the misunderstood net neutrality notion. Even if one was to presume that
Google's "COGS" was low and now it will meet market demand. The problem is
Google can somewhat afford to increase their "COGS". But someone trying to
build another Google will get killed because now the costs have increased.

Then there is something about blockchain and Steemit out from the left field.

~~~
olivermarks
it just goes to show the understanding and perspectives of this issue out
there...

------
Overtonwindow
I think this is a poorly written rant on an albeit important issue. Content
providers should also abide by some net neutrality rules, such as not
censoring speech or websites, or content in general. They should also pay for
the bandwidth they use. I think Google, Facebook, and Netflix do not support
net neutrality out of altruism, but out of a business need. It's important we
keep that in perspective.

------
kevmoo1
Poor bandwidth has nothing to do with Net Neutrality and everything to do with
~zero competition.

There's a reason these folks are fighting municipal broadband.

