how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2009-06-03 10:56:07: Because he's an investor -- and the push toward metered billing is driven primarily by investors who want to see carriers monetize Internet video delivery and protect TV revenues -- Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett's been pushing hard for mete.. ..
| |
 
reactionqk
@verizon.net
| Wonder what the future web outlook is like  It will be interesting what will happen as all of the "me" generation gets busier and busier. Suddenly less "Youtube" "Games" and other intensive bandwidth stuff from them. This will be interesting when the primary users will be the late 90's - 20xx generation what will the new trend be? What would their web consumption be? I was growing up with "instant messaging" and "AOL" and mostly text although some ("sound real video") and where the transition to the more intensive web started to take place slowly. Mostly video here and video their youtube is an infant and likes of it.
Now I'm no way opining the "me" will fly off the web. Just it probably in my eyes will look more like a utility of need to do that paper work = digital work (pay bills, purchase, talk to friends etc and help manage family life chronology post pictures to private folders) for them. So in the end i think it will depend what the next generation users do mostly and how bandwidth intensive. HEHE if they can't sell enough megs.
The "me" is past the "WOW" stage with the desktop computers. We need computers but it is no longer the "WOW OMG" type of thing. The value is less and one can get a desktop for $800 or less. Not $2,100 and up as it was even few years ago (Computers are the new phone not like we no longer use phones but). I have not been following the next generation closely but i do know they love to text lots. Which is not even the internet and do feel they don't even instant message often. They probably hang out on social sites when on the internet. They need to do some statical analysis where most of the bandwidth these users allocate between the Video, Audio and text portion of the social sites. The next generation has plenty of time to direct next portion of major consumption. | |
| 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Artificial scarcity That's what folks like Moffett is trying to create with the idea that upgrades aren't needed etc etc.
He's just trying to create a scarcity that doesn't exist. It's the same scam that's been placed on consumers for years.
The ISP folks will bill however, they want, and the vast majority of American sheeple will just bend over & take it. Before long it's standard practice.
With that, it isn't needed or necessary. These providers aren't NOT getting paid for providing service. They aren't doing this for free as it is. And some of them ARE in fact making money on all sides of the equation when you're talking a company like TWC with both a content delivery and creation practice.
Sure, investor type folks like Moffett would like per byte billing because it makes more money. Pretty simple. He's a consumer of course with vastly more disposable income than many so what's he to care what it costs you.
Classic can't see the forest for the trees mentality.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
| chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| thenext gen gets smart, grabs open source and goes home then makes game or plays NON online cause as well know its a recession and YA DON'T FRAKING increase during a recession
it will only last so long and as i don't see the picture for economy getting better ANYTIME in next 3 yr as more lose jobs more will suddenly say this internet frak it, ill get what i can and that's it, i haven't downloaded more then 10GB cause i bought a TB filled it with books and everything i can imagine , now i cold care less when it comes to bell CYA!!!
as to the genius economists above it don't take a rocket scientist or a wall street guru to know this is a short term attempt at revenue. without continued investment in that last mile these caps and overages will rise and rise and rise until 5 people in the USA and one in Canada have internet and that's exactly what holly-wood wants.
OH mister Hollywood we still aren't going to buy your crap.
and then a class action lawsuit might go about the 400 million in levies for cdrs ....... | |
| clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| Not Metered -- Market Billing If investors want to play this game, then I demand not metered billing, but market billing. That is, bandwidth is priced instantaneously per market price dictated by demand.
Advantage is to the consumer, who now has the option to download when network capacity is overflowing and ostensibly, the price per byte is at its lowest. People can download movies at 5:00 a.m. when sleeping, leaving more bandwidth in peak hours for other people.
Investors don't want this, and the ISPs don't want this because this deflates their argument they need to control bandwidth hogs. | |
| 
BBBanditRuR
join:2009-06-02
Parachute, CO
 ·Comcast
·Qwest.net
| SSDD I said the same thing yesterday about Cogeco, and I can't stand the comments of "but they are spending money on Ghz plants and node splitting durrr....."
SHOW ME THE DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS OF CONGESTION. Yeah, even the last mile hoopla.
I'll be happy to show my area's lack of competition, year after year after year... (Competition, or lack thereof, and "lack of capacity" are strangely related)
Oh and (cablecos/telcos) shut up with the exaflood boogeyman.
Cabelcos/Telcos don't want to be dumb pipes. Period. So the answer? Screw the consumer. For technology and companies in tech to be this closed and scared is just inexplicable. | |
| | mlcarson
join:2001-09-20
Las Cruces, NM
| Re: SSDD The only valid metering should be on bytes transferred -- not received. Going over a cap for outgoing data would be a somewhat legitimate case for being forced onto a business program.
The way of stopping this whole idea is to get the government involved in the metering. Why should I take the company's word that I sent or received a specific amount of data without any guarantee that the metering is being done correctly. If a provider knew that caps would require some government agency being involved in what data could be metered and what could not and setting rates -- they would drop this concept immediately.
There needs to be a high cost connected to the metering or these greedy bastards will never drop it. | |
| bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK
| There will never be competition... in the broadband market. And if you have a cjoice between cable and dsl, two choices alone is hardly competition.
If ISP's have their way, simple e-mail and light web surfing is all you will be able to do. Forget gaming. Patching your sieve called Windows will be out of the question also. Spam is going to start costing you dearly as it eats away at your allotment. This is coming and you better believe it.
The government has to legislate your Internet freedom. Whether you like gov't intervention or not. It is the only way the consumer will be protected in the monopoly or duopoly we now have. I would just as soon see the government nationalize it and be done with the issue. | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| our rights the poor working class who make under about $60k a year before taxes need not be screwed anymore. those on wall st. did enough damage and wreaked havoc with virtually every product & service in the economy. shouldn't there be some more perp walks for these nut jobs? their names should be slinged through the mud even if they're found not guilty just for pricipal alone. | |
| babystars_13
join:2009-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN |  hmm
| |
| bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Social Idealism is cute... in young children However, we adults live in the real world, where if you want someone to offer something for sale, you need to make it worth their while. It needs to be the absolute best use of their available capital.
That's why government won't ride into to the rescue of these starry-eyed bandwidth hogs. People who actually have to think for a living recognize that if you regulate something so much that no one feels that it is worth offering that something, then guess what?!?!? No one will offer it!
Or you'll get a situation like with Verizon in northern New England: They realized that, between regulation and the simple lack of willingness of consumers to pay good money, it simply wasn't worth offering their world-class FiOS service, so they sold out and left town. They took their hard-earned capital and invested it in things that they could make enough money on to justify the attempt.
Alas, the children will whine, and cry, and engage in all manner of superstitious mumbo-jumbo in hopes that they can have their cake and eat it too... but it isn't going to happen, no matter what anyone does. People's first responsibilities are to themselves and to their families, and that unshakable truth is going to drive a price-for-value approach for practically everything in society. If you don't pay it as a consumer, then you'll just end up paying it as a taxpayer. | |
| yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
1 edit | Emotion's vs Facts While there are many emotions, self serving positions and dooms day predictions in this thread, I didn't read many facts. That said I highly recommend people read Justin's (BBR owner) editorial on this topic. It actually makes sense and is pretty unbias.
»Editorial: Caps are welcome
quote:
Clean fast bandwidth is not an inexhaustible resource. I want my ISP to deliver maximum speed without any perceptible congestion, and with minimal latency. I want them to invest heavily in their infrastructure to ensure they can meet the speed and latency targets morning noon and night. When an ISP engineer says that metering and caps are necessary for quality service, I believe them. Any customer of a data center understands the equation: they understand that BOTH speed and monthly usage are key factors in pricing. US ISPs, due to inheriting dial-up pricing plans (effectively included caps due to very low speeds) have been missing one pricing factor, to the detriment of the majority of users and the benefit to a minority.
The main issue is - historically, as speeds increased, the cost to serve the average customer has not (today) as their usage habbits don't substantially change. There is however a class of user that consumes all bandwidth that is given to them which in turn causes 1 of 2 things
•All the rest of us must share the cost of that group of users (small % of users consuming most of the bandwidth. It is estimated that those going over 250G are something like 0.1% of the user base) - I can dig up the data on this, but sources have been quoted before)
•Those few users should pay their own costs by moving to a business tier or some other method (vs the rest of us funding their traffic)
There is also a future prediction of more and more video services running over broadband vs. traditional means. This is good, but understand that if usage patterns change and double, tripple, +++ then there is an added cost to that as well as a lost revenue from traditional TV. You can say "greedy" all you want, but think through both sides of the issue.
Think. | |
|
mslucas
@rr.com
|  free market
However for people like me who have one broadband isp there is no competition! If metered billing is put on this area there is no competition to take it away and we all get jacked.
thats the free market option for a large portion of us | |
|
none at all
@senescomarine.com
| hell with them look these cock sucking fuckers have been fucking us long enough
yes cable was at one point worth gettin
im 30 im old enough to remember when i first got cable
you paid like 50 bucks a month you got to get
all those channles
it was uncenored you did not get 45 mins of fucking comercails for a hour worth of progaming
for what it is worth there is nothing worth viewing or vaule if you ask me
you can get most of that stuff over the air
local channles
there is no longer any vaule | |
| | 
OmegaWolf747
Vive la revolucion
join:2009-02-08
Royal Oak, MI | Re: hell with them Instead of punishing customers for actually using the bandwidth we pay so handsomely for, the telecoms just need to add more bandwidth. | |
| SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| Prices should be based on costs Bandwidth costs money. A lot of money in many areas. (In my area, it costs $100 per Mbps per month at wholesale, and obviously needs to cost more at retail if the ISP is to keep its doors open.)
If a consumer uses more bandwidth, he or she costs the ISP more. If we want our ISPs to be stable businesses and provide quality service, we should want the person who uses more to pay more. Whether it's done by metering from the first bit, or via a "cap plus overage" mechanism, or by throttling to keep the costs incurred by the user within certain limits, it simply has to be done. | |
| | | |
|
