Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ | FUD
They just don't want any more regulations.  |
|
SuperJoker
join:2005-11-21
Yermo, CA | They better not or else
They better not or else people might get angrier than they are now. |
|
Phil
Rojo Sol
Premium
join:2001-06-11
Camarillo, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
|  Of course they'll cap...
I've never once used Verizon's video on demand (VOD) services for the simply fact that I can get it cheaper online (via Netflix usually). Caps would limit what I could do with my Internet connection therefore forcing me to either use their services or use another alternative. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
 ·Comcast
| reply to SuperJoker
Time to regulate as a utility.....
Make the carriers prove the necessity of such a billing model before a form of a PUC. Count the cap as a form of money to be regulated too. Have the carriers bring their claims of the necessity of implementing restrictions of use (caps) and overage charges before an impartial body (if you could find one), so these claims could be fiscally and technically scrutinized. Results could be then made public, and we could then decide what would be an adequate profit to maintenance ratio (point of contention, I know).
These companies left on their own will not have consumer interests in mind....they are simply following in the footsteps of the financial institutions that have trashed our economy with the attitude of anything goes with regards to gouging!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
dlewis23
join:2005-04-18
Boca Raton, FL
| No problems with caps when...
I have no problem with bandwidth caps when they are in reason and if they allow you to pay a little bit more for a much larger cap.
If verizon came out and said on our 20 Mbps service we are not going to complain if you say use a terabyte a month, but if your using 2, 3, and 4 TB in a month every month like some people do we are going to charge you more or limit your service.
I have no problem with that and I would think most people won't have a problem with that. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
 ·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| Caps are crap and the arguments for them are crap...
Cause you never see the actual tier price drop. It doesn't make service cost less for a single soul, just rapes some customers for even more money.
If these cap promoters were actually telling the truth about light users versus heavy users, you would see a $7.50 "connectivity" fee and then the metered billing. But no, they still want their $45+ base price whether you download a single thing or not and then go up from there.
--
POKE 65495,1 |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  Some observations
Many customers may be stupid, but they can apparently read Time Warner Cable's 10-K form I'd venture to say that a vast majority of TW's customers wouldn't know a 10K form if it jumped up and bit them on the behind. And many don't have a clue as to whether TW even makes a profit or not. They only know what they pay per month is more than they would like.
-------
If Verizon decides to move to usage based billing, then I would think they would be smart enough to make it cost neutral for the average user and even a little discount for very light users. And once you get them on the usage plans and their usage starts to rise due to more online video viewing, you got them hooked.
At least that is how I would manage the process. Sort of like the story where you put the frog in a pot full of room temperature water and slowly raise the temperature over time. If you throw the frog in hot water, he jumps right out. But slowly bring it to a boil and you've got it cooked.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to Bit
Re: Caps are crap and the arguments for them are crap...
I know, what did we EVER do to them OTHER than make them lots of money. Why must they feel the need to skrew us. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to dlewis23
Re: No problems with caps when...
Yeah like, $40 for a 10/3 with a 1TB cap and like $50 for a 10/3 with a 2TB cap would be more reasonable IMHO. $56 for 10/3 3TB ect. |
|
glinc
join:2009-04-07
New York, NY | meh
cap downloads im fine with it....but don't cap my upload or i'll have to pay extra for a seedbox!!
I've uploaded over 5TB in a month lol. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
 ·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to SuperJoker
Re: They better not or else
said by SuperJoker  :They better not or else people might get angrier than they are now. Most people won't even notice. |
|
MichaelWacey
OwlSaver
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| They do cap performance
Right now, they cap performance. You sign up for 15/2 and they do not let you go over that, even if there is capacity to do so. So, why is capping usage worse than capping performance? What if they came out with a plan to let performance float but put a cap on usage? What if both usage and performance were metered?
We live in a world of limited resources. So, we should pay for those resources that we use. I like unlimited usage since it makes my budgeting easier. But, I think fair usage charges would be OK. Then again, I doubt that Verizon and I would ever agree on what is fair. |
|
Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC
| reply to S_engineer
Re: Time to regulate as a utility.....
I don't file trade or anything like that and my bandwidth use just keeps going up. I could see putting a reasonably high cap on a person but they're just trying to make a killing on everyone in the next few years. I know I started using netflix to watch movies on my computer and I doubled or tripled my usage in a month.
Once caps go in they will never go up but people will use more and more bandwidth as new better working products come on line so screw'em. |
|
Brakeheart
@zyxel.com
| Video content migrating to IP
Part of this hot dilemma is that video content is migrating to IP - service providers have enjoyed milking TV profits since consumers are forced to bundle in expensive channels they don't want. Its not all the service provider's fault either, the broadcasting companies are tyrannical and are not afraid to use their own media delivery to bash their potential video serve provider partners.
That being said, we now realize that on-demand content that is free (advertising model), or on-demand content that is paid for is our future, the Internet service providers will see an increased use of bandwidth and a diminished ability to exact profits by monopoly and duopoly.
To be sure, the net neutrality debate is misguided. The term itself covers many topics that are better discussed separately. One is almost forced to be opposed to all or agree with all issues within net-neutrality. Time Warner attempted to impose unimaginably restrictive caps, possibly if they opened up the caps to something reasonable, people may not have reacted as they did.
Ultimately bandwidth usage will increase and there must be some kind of burden on the parties who are making the most profit to share the cost of providing bigger broadband pipes. In the background, the service providers and content providers are waging a sneaky war and delicately trying to avoid stepping on the consumer as they do so.
Consumers who use the most should be paying the most, but after we've all been abused by cell phone providers, I cannot forsee people accepting overage fees and restrictive caps |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | Crap4crap...
The way Verizon's billing system is now, ...  |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| reply to me1212
Re: Caps are crap and the arguments for them are crap...
It's fine if they try and screw people...that is free enterprise. What I want to know is why they feel so compelled to try and bull-S about it. If they want to put their customers over a barrel be honest about it. Doing this endless circlejerk of "customers love paying higher prices" is getting them nowhere.
--
POKE 65495,1 |
|
vapor2314
@lexis-nexis.com | reply to Brakeheart
Re: Video content migrating to IP
for the love of god people stop saying you are willing to accept a cap if it is reasonable. There is no need other than greed for caps |
|
nrocme
| reply to Eat Me
Re: They better not or else
If most people wouldn't notice, then how would they make any money from the metered billing? They want metered billing to impact the most people. That's the point of it all. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Some observations
said by TKJunkMail :then I would think they would be smart enough to make it cost neutral for the average user and even a little discount for very light users. And once you get them on the usage plans and their usage starts to rise due to more online video viewing, you got them hooked. That's the way to bring capped/metered billing to the marketplace. I'm surprised the incumbent ISP's haven't raised rates across their customer base while offering discounts back to the previous costs for customers that choose caps and metered billing. Customers would see a "standard" price increase, but an option to receive a discount "saving them money" even though it would be a wash in the end. This approach would have avoided a vast majority of the bad press and consumer push back for all but some technophiles that rant on sites like DSLR....and for them, they can pay the premium for uncapped and/or unmetered connections. |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Regulate The Meters
If these ISP's want to meter Internet delivery then regulations should be put in place that subject the "meter" to the same controls as electric meters, gasoline pumps and scales at stores. The local government bureau that is responsible in a given area for making sure electric meters and other measuring devices are correct, and who seals and certifies the various measuring devices, should be the ones who monitor the ISP for fairness. Otherwise, you can pretty much guarantee that ISP "meter" will have a tendency to high-ball your usage in order to push you into the overage column. That level of detailed regulation on Verizon and the cable companies might be enough to dissuade them.
Personally I would not trust the ISP, whose interest in seeing me go over caps, to meter my usage.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
