how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2009-06-17 17:40:10: Prompted by Time Warner Cable's botched attempt to force low caps and metered billing on its customers, Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y. ..
| |
 
DJMASACRE
join:2008-05-27
Nepean, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| poop first of all, there should never be caps, or if there is always offer unlimited plans for those groups who buy internet for downloading obsessions .
"The Free Press Solution advocates for a radical and unprecedented government mandate that will demand that consumers have only one all-you-can-eat pricing model for Internet services," says the carrier. "Free Press prefers that grandma - who simply wants to download their grandchildren's online photos a few times a month - to pay for the heavy-using teenager who is downloading HD movies."
that made no sense at all. you pay for your packaged service period. if Grandma pays for her 3meg plan at 10$, shes not paying the heavy-using teenagers plan of 5meg at 30$.
you pay for your own service, and you receive that service.
i love when these companies have no excuse for what they do and try to make up stuff that makes no sense at all.
then again, youll get those people who say ¨well that make sense ... so then all those pirate people will stop hogging up all the internet for the rest of us ¨.. give me a break | |
| 
Musclebrain
Premium
join:2009-02-15
Lincoln, NE
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| If metered billing and caps happen, piracy expands. The hardware is out there. If big business tries to throttle the bandwidth, I forsee people banding together to set up localized resource pools using intranet models. Think wirelessly networked neighborhoods, firewalled from the internet but still connected. The host system delegates every member of the pool to download certain high bandwidth content that is then uplinked back to the host server for distribution. Every member of the network contributes some data to the host. The host then allows all members to download anything they want from that data-pool. They can't regulate the bandwidth of peer to peer connections on your side of the firewall, they can't even see the activity. Perhaps the only computer that is not connected directly to the internet is the actual host server of the neighborhood intranet system.
Such a response would actually piss a lot of rich and powerful people off, as they can't be sure anyone is seeing their advertisements, they can't tell who is watching their content, and all the statistics and numbers they collect are skewed by the fact that they can't see what is going on on the other side of all those firewalled intranets. Everyone in such an intranet scheme is beneath their bandwidth cap and pays the minimum bill, because the network host determines which computers on the intranet will connect to the internet to download high bandwidth content for redistribution. So now, the icing on the cake is, usage statistics go down, income they were counting on from high bandwidth users vanishes. Response: They'll want to license and monitor the intranets, and they'll lobby to make networking products collect statistics and report them, and should those products not be in constant communication with Big Brother, they will stop working.
These people want to control the internet. They think they have the power to do so, but the internet is a form of anarchy. The harder they squeeze it, the more they will lose control over it. Eventually they will make it such a hassle to use, that we'll just pull the plug on TV, the internet, and all their crap, and we'll rediscover the joys of painting, travelling, throwing parties, bar-hopping or whatever, anything that doesn't involve the greedy data-Nazi's that want to delegate our entertainment, our rights and our lives.
My message to them: Wake up and smell the coffee. Change your business model. Give the people what they want, give it to them for free. Make your money off the advertising you stream in your content. It worked for network television, it can work again. Pandora's box has been opened and you can't stuff the demons back inside, so work with what is there. | |
| SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
1 edit | Exceedingly anti-business Massa's bill says:
Volume usage charges for broadband Internet access that are substantially above cost in a market without sufficient competition constitute an unfair and unconscionable practice...
In other words, if a provider brings high speed Internet to an area where this Congressman views competition as not being "sufficient" (note that this is vague and ignores the fact that satellite and cellular Internet are pretty much ubiquitous; guess they don't count), and makes a profit on it (i.e. charges any price per bit that's substantially above cost), it's evil.
Heaven forbid that a business should make money. | |
| 
icehole
@qwest.net
| and then the way I see it is that we "the consumer" will get screwed regardless of capped or uncapped as long as there is only 1 or 2 options to choose from.. There simply needs to be a higher implementation of alternative broadband sources other then Cable & DSL here.. Look at what folks are getting all over Eu for so much less then us.. But they have also implemented other technologies (like the powerline stuff). I have had alot of interactions with fiends across the pond & it amazes me that for over 100 bucks a month I Can get a 20mb download & a whopping 896k up.. Where for 15 euro's they are getting speeds that dwarf that both up & Down..
The person who used the dial up analogy had it right.. Give us options & let us choose.. When someone is doing it wrong they loose business till they do it right.. end of story.. | |
|
Switeck
@comcast.net
| ...paved with good intentions. So long as ISPs have oversold their real bandwidth about 50 times over, this is unfortunately a bad idea.
Satellite and cellular "broadband Internet access" are so dirty that to call them competition is just stupid. They're a poor substitute for TRUE broadband internet access without filtered access, harsh restrictions, permanent firewall, low monthly bandwidth limits, high overage charges, and long locked-in contracts. If anything, they're probably the best examples for why fair access laws are needed!
Turning internet access into a utility monopoly won't help. Any government-decided minimum standards is about all we can expect to get from that!
New competition that's not litigated to death just for existing is a much-needed part of a long-term solution. | |
|
Deaf Video Realy
@sbcglobal.net
|  Bandwith Caps discriminate against the Deaf
| |
| 
linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State | Huh???? IF service providers wanted to do something about the HD movie and p2p downloads, instead of whining about it, they can block the IP number and get over it.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside | |
| | | |
|
