Someone interested in how it might work imagining a system similar to Netflix for ISP subscriptions
Someone interested in how it might work imagining a system similar to Netflix for ISP subscriptions
Recently while checking ISP rates in my area, an idea came to mind... Most customers use very little data. That’s what providers rely on, don’t you think? They advertise 100MBps knowing most people only need around 1MBps for a short time each day. If everyone suddenly used their full capacity at once, the network would fail. Yet ISPs seem to ignore this reality—offering uniform plans regardless of usage. This feels unfair and wasteful. I believe there should be alternatives. Could we find a way to manage this ourselves? Is it possible to share subscriptions like with Netflix? But how would someone connect their internet to another person’s device without special gear? I’m not an expert, but I think a router might help. Maybe a local provider could install a small, custom router with tailored software, letting users control access and route traffic through a central server. A web-based service could manage logins and handle data sharing, even setting usage limits. Could this work across regions? If people weren’t worried about slow connections, would it be legal? I’m still thinking, but I wonder if this is something worth exploring.
Essentially, you're an ISP now. How would you imagine smaller ISPs linking up to the internet? Typically through a bigger provider. The challenge comes when you try to manage your connection fairly—so no single user can overuse it and disrupt others. You also want protection from legal issues if someone uses your service for illegal activities. Who do you think would be the first to receive a formal notice from an attorney or policy officer if they found out your connection was downloading pirated material? Would you prefer that responsibility? It’s likely against your ISP’s terms of service to set up your own network using their services. While it might not be illegal, your ISP could immediately end your contract if they detect such behavior.
Beyond that, many unlimited plans aren’t truly unlimited—they often have data caps. Exceeding those limits could lead to being disconnected. Sharing your connection with many users increases the risk of misuse sooner or later. That’s how the internet functions in practice. To succeed, you’d need to establish infrastructure—get permits, lay cables, and ensure maintenance. Unless you can afford it, you’ll likely have to rent someone else’s network, which is exactly what most ISPs do.
The concept aims to enable ISPs to let users share their internet connections. It seeks to create a conversation between consumers and providers for a fairer, more balanced society. It intends to give power back to those who can't afford subscriptions. Inspired by piratebay, the goal isn’t profit but helping build a better world. How could this be achieved? What would work best? The focus should be on forming a non-profit organization to handle the technical and operational aspects.
The issue is that local telecom providers control the final delivery network. It makes sense they wouldn't want you using their services unless you could get an internet connection from major companies like Comcast or Verizon. Setting up your own network would be incredibly costly. You'd also need permission from pole owners and negotiate with every city to operate there. This explains why big players expanded slowly—local ISPs were common when dial-up was still popular, but that era is long gone. Most home plans already include these services, so you'd likely pay more for a dedicated residential plan than for a local ISP subscription.
The idea presented isn't practical. Establishing reliable bandwidth between users typically requires specialized solutions like peer-to-peer Wi-Fi, which are limited to highly crowded locations. Still, the main provider would likely block such activity.
You don’t need special tools to achieve this. Place a router or switch between your ISP modem and connect multiple devices. It doesn’t have to be a computer at home. The challenge is: Wi-Fi has limited range, and increasing strength can lead to legal issues. Most places restrict signals beyond certain levels. Cables to neighbors also raise concerns, especially in urban areas where you might cross property lines. This method works well in rural settings with shared yards, but running cables across busy streets isn’t practical. And since you’re the owner, authorities will likely call you first if any illegal activity occurs.
What you're describing is something ISPs already handle. They don't charge every subscriber a full 100Mbps from their upstream or peering arrangements with other providers. Instead, they expect most users to use much less bandwidth on average, allowing them to spread the high infrastructure costs across many more customers. This shift away from relying solely on large providers is often referred to as "municipal broadband." If you're considering this approach, it makes sense to follow the trend. However, in practice, the actual cost structure can be quite different, even though the theoretical model suggests otherwise. Their real pricing may not seem logical, but it aligns with what works in the market. Also, if you think about leasing a 10G line, it's important that enough people join the municipal network to keep the costs manageable.
Exactly. When you connect with a small group, even if they’re all light users, your bandwidth gets heavily used during busy times, which is likely considered excessive for a home customer. Even I experience long periods of inactivity, so I wouldn’t rely on the connection as much as many light users would. The idea behind ISPs is that light users help support heavy users. It might seem unfair, but completely pricing heavy users out could be more just. If ISPs had used this approach back then (and it’s true some U.S. providers did), YouTube wouldn’t have launched because people couldn’t afford the connection.