dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2010-12-16 17:11:18: For years during the network neutrality debate, some supporters warned of a future that involved customers paying more money if they wanted to access certain content. ..

prev page · 1 · 2

WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5

What If I Charged You Extra to Download Movies?

We are a WISP - Wireless ISP.

What we see happening is the consumer thinks they can drop their $200 per month satellite or cable service and replace it with a $30 per month internet account (and expect the same level of service).

We're looking at rolling new pricing tiers.

Basic - Lowest cost. 2 Mbps speed (256 guaranteed). 600 MB daily limit. Will not be able to download a movie.

Basic Plus - About $20 more per month. 2 Mbps speed (256 guaranteed). 1,200 MB daily limit. Good for one movie per night and extended internet usage.

Entertainment Basic - About $90 per month. 3,200 MB daily limit. Good for a few movies per night and several hours of watching TV programs.

Once you exceed your limit, you are throttled to 256 Kbps for the rest of the billing period - Fast enough for basic internet usage. Since we're not charging for overages, this is not a "monetizing" model.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: What If I Charged You Extra to Download Movies?

said by WHT:

We are a WISP - Wireless ISP.

What we see happening is the consumer thinks they can drop their $200 per month satellite or cable service and replace it with a $30 per month internet account (and expect the same level of service).

We're looking at rolling new pricing tiers.

Basic - Lowest cost. 2 Mbps speed (256 guaranteed). 600 MB daily limit. Will not be able to download a movie.

Basic Plus - About $20 more per month. 2 Mbps speed (256 guaranteed). 1,200 MB daily limit. Good for one movie per night and extended internet usage.

Entertainment Basic - About $90 per month. 3,200 MB daily limit. Good for a few movies per night and several hours of watching TV programs.

Once you exceed your limit, you are throttled to 256 Kbps for the rest of the billing period - Fast enough for basic internet usage. Since we're not charging for overages, this is not a "monetizing" model.

That's a joke. Also 3200 MB is not good for "a few movies" AND "hours of tv" One HD movie streamed would put you over the cap.
jim_p_price7

join:2005-10-28
Henryetta, OK

Re: What If I Charged You Extra to Download Movies?

said by 88615298:

That's a joke.

Said like someone who has no idea what it means to run a WISP.

trainwreck6

join:2010-09-21
off track

Re: What If I Charged You Extra to Download Movies?

And also said by someone who is unwisely a Rays fan.

WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
said by 88615298:

said by WHT:

Entertainment Basic - About $90 per month. 3,200 MB daily limit. Good for a few movies per night and several hours of watching TV programs.

That's a joke. Also 3200 MB is not good for "a few movies" AND "hours of tv" One HD movie streamed would put you over the cap.

A Netflicks VP estimated a download was 1.2 GB, so 3,200 MB per night would two movies (which still qualifies as "several"). A HD movie can be as large as 4 GB plus...looks like some people will have to choose - low definition or upgrade to a higher download tier.

WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
said by 88615298:

That's a joke. Also 3200 MB is not good for "a few movies" AND "hours of tv" One HD movie streamed would put you over the cap.

A I posted in another topic thread....
said by WHT:
IT-IS-NOT-THE-COST-OF-UPSTREAM-BANDWIDTH. It the cost of delivering it the last mile or two, or ten.

WISP - The "W" stands for "wireless". A tower site may have four access points, and each access point can support around 30 users. So at tops, a site can support 120 users. Now it may cost us $30,000 to stack a tower. That's $30,000 for 120 users. Do you have any idea that the ROI time period could be?

said by WHT:
The consumer thinks they can drop their $200 per month satellite or cable service and replace it with a $30 per month internet account (and expect the same level of service).
borka

join:2003-04-01
Brooklyn, NY

1 recommendation

said by WHT:

Once you exceed your limit, you are throttled to 256 Kbps for the rest of the billing period - Fast enough for basic internet usage. Since we're not charging for overages, this is not a "monetizing" model.

Let me guess, you run this wisp in an extremely rural area, where DSL nor cable is available, so for %99 of your customers its either dialup, satelite or you? correct?

What happens if I want to download a game from STEAM? games are usually around 4.5GB...

what happens if i have 4 computers at home, and i run updates on all of them, bringing me over your 600MB DAILY limit. and what if this happens on my FIRST day of my billing cycle? I will now be stuck to 256k for 29 more days???? all for using 700mb in one day??

This is the worst data allowance that i have EVER heard of.

You do realize that once your customers have ANY other choice, you will be out of business fairly quick.

WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5

Re: What If I Charged You Extra to Download Movies?

said by borka:

Let me guess, you run this wisp in an extremely rural area, where DSL nor cable is available, so for %99 of your customers its either dialup, satelite or you? correct?

Correct, or some other WISP.

said by borka:

What happens if I want to download a game from STEAM? games are usually around 4.5GB...

The download isn't completed then.

said by borka:

what happens if i have 4 computers at home, and i run updates on all of them, bringing me over your 600MB DAILY limit. and what if this happens on my FIRST day of my billing cycle? I will now be stuck to 256k for 29 more days???? all for using 700mb in one day??

Then I guess you're in the same situation of anyone that has a satellite connection of 200 MB per day. You can pay me for a higher monthly data allowance or take your computers into a computer shop and pay them.

If you go over your daily limit, you are only rate limited until the next day, not until the end of the month.

said by borka:

This is the worst data allowance that i have EVER heard of.

Then you haven't heard of Hughesnet's 200 MB limit, or their 500 MB limit with their $349 per month plan.

said by borka:

You do realize that once your customers have ANY other choice, you will be out of business fairly quick.

That's fine with me. 90% of my subs can live with my rates. if they can't, then I'll be glad to let my competition loose money on them.

said by RJARRRPCGP:

256 kbps is a joke! It's NOT 2001!

You misread what I said. 256K is the guaranteed rate, but typically closer to 2 Mbps. Wireless last mile delivery is a shared resource, its not like a committed DSL or cable internet service.

If anyone really needs a guaranteed 1.5/1.5 Mbps connection, we can assist them in getting a T1 line installed and they will enter into a contract with the T1 provider for $600 to $900 per month.

JKM

join:2009-06-08
Seymour, MO

1 recommendation

Re: What If I Charged You Extra to Download Movies?

Consumers seem to think they are entitled to unlimited everything for almost nothing. As a small Wireless ISP, I can tell you that the Internet capacity is nowhere near ready for unlimited streaming content. Netflix has a business model that can't be supported with the present Internet infrastructure, period. We are only starting to see the problem.

The Internet is a shared resource. At the present time it is estimated that Netflix is 20% of the total traffic. I suspect it will be half the traffic in a few years. Think about that......this means over a few years it has doubled the traffic. This means one content provider will have as much traffic as all the rest of the millions of content providers. Will all the level one providers, ISPs and content providers sit still for this while Netflix makes millions for an under-priced content that breaks the Internet for the rest of us and pays nothing for the transportation of their product, I doubt it.

Here is an article I wrote about the specific of a wireless network:
For years contention based ISP business models have made Internet service affordable to consumers. This business model is in grave danger due to the increasing amount of streaming content becoming available. The consumer thinks they can acquire a dedicated service for a contention-based price. We must work to educate them.

I believe the average consumer does not understand the cost of Internet products very well, if at all. The cost from least to most is content, bandwidth and transportation. In my area 60 - 70% of bandwidth cost is transportation. Then it must be transported from the providers PoP to my network and across a couple more links to the AP. In my opinion all of this is still not the real problem.

The one hurdle that is the hardest to overcome is last-mile network capacity. This can only be overcome with technology. Technology like most things in life is a trade-off. We can have somewhat better technology for much more money and much less range. What this means is we can have the capacity to stream video to many but it will raise the price of the Internet service for all on the network. It would easily double the cost of the network in last-mile hardware costs alone. Now factor in the bandwidth. If one-third of the customers on the network stream video, the demand for bandwidth will increase to 360% of normal. This does not account for the fact that with 33% of us watching streaming TV on a 1.5 Mbps connection during prime time we will exceed the capacity of the Access point by 3.6 times. Another drawback to technology that supports more bandwidth is that range will be greatly decreased and coverage to as much as half the customers in our area will most likely be lost. I made these calculations based on an access point serving 100 users. But just 10 customers streaming TV on a 1.5 Mbps connection during prime time can use all the capacity of that access point. This means that the ISP could need as much as ten times the equipment to keep up with demand. This will exceed the load capacity of the tower, not to mention the lack of spectrum to accommodate that many APs. So now I hope you are starting to see the value of your present TV service. It is transportation not content that makes your cable or satellite TV cost so much. I can't see a way to design a wireless network that will support 30% - 50% of it's customers watching streaming HDTV, even one channel per household during three hours of prime time viewing, and be affordable enough to remain in business. I know in our household, various family members watch two or three different channels at once.

In addition please check the following links to start to understand the magnitude of the streaming content dilemma:
»www.businessweek.com/magazine/co···7708.htm
»gigaom.com/2010/12/01/fcc-opens-···-access/
»Level3 Accuses Comcast Of Net Neutrality Violation

This is a real problem that few understand. I know many will think this is a lie from an ISP to control traffic. Seriously, I started a WISP to provide service to rural Americans with few if any other options. In my service area about 35% of us do not have access to anything but dial-up, satellite and if we are lucky wireless. Now I have to watch the Digital Divide grow because I can’t acquire affordable technology to provide streaming content to my customers.

As more consumers use a streaming content, the quality of everybody’s Internet experience will decline at an amazing rate. Fiber is the only answer, but I honestly do not think we can expect it in many rural areas for at least fifty years. I will continue to pay $80.00 per month for my satellite TV. As the owner of my network I cannot transport the content for what the satellite provider can. In addition, it would be selfish of me to monopolize the shared resources of the network.

Hopefully when you see the contrast of what a large percent of Americans have for Internet service you will appreciate your situation more. And yes, the rural/wireless situation is unique. However all that uniqueness does is make the real problem easier to understand. The Internet is not ready for full-blown streaming content. Another competitor will make things even worse and that is bound to happen. Wait and see.
--
Begin with the end in mind!
RJARRRPCGP

join:2010-12-17
Springfield, VT
256 kbps is a joke! It's NOT 2001!

WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
Well, I bounced this idea off some of my subscribers and they said the potential of getting FAPed (what the HughesNet people say when they went over their daily FAP - Fair Access Policy - limit and got their speed throttled) was not something they would NOT like to see.

However they said a metered plan would be acceptable as it would not really affect them and it would keep excessive users at bay.

Considering 80-90% of our subs use less than 10 GB per month...

One of our original tiers:
Residential: $35 @ 2 Mbps, 30 GB per month

New Proposed DAILY cap tier:
Basic: $55 @ 2 Mbps, 18 GB limit at 600 MB per day

New Proposed METERED cost for 10 GB of usage:
Basic: - $25 @ 2 Mbps connection fee plus $.50 per GB

Guess what? The monthly cost to the typical subscribe is still $35 per month!

Now what if you used 200 GB per month (about what 20 typical subscribers use). You'd be paying $125 per month.

If you, your wife, and two kids all start downloading movies or watch TV programs all evening, that's going to suck up every bit of data that AP could transmit. The other 19 subscribers on that AP are going to get real crappy service and cancel. I've just lost $700 to earn your measly $125.

ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN

What would I do?

Well, Good Me would simply stop using that ISP. The evil me would find ways to steal ISP service from others.
--
»were.boldlygoingnowhere.org if we don't change out ways!

treichhart

join:2006-12-12

Re: What would I do?

Well if you think about it every ISP in the usa in the future is going to do this to recover the cost of bandwidth. Seriously do you know how much it cost your ISP to buy or build bandwidth? if you dont then you be in shock how much it really cost.

ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN

Re: What would I do?

It just costs a bit of time,effort & resources. Nothing more. Anything else is a fabrication of possession.
--
»were.boldlygoingnowhere.org if we don't change out ways!
jim_p_price7

join:2005-10-28
Henryetta, OK

Re: What would I do?

said by ctceo:

It just costs a bit of time,effort & resources. Nothing more. Anything else is a fabrication of possession.

Wrong. I used to think like you. Then I started my own ISP. Now I realize how misinformed I actually was.

rchandra
Stargate Universe fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105

1 recommendation

Re: What would I do?

so...could you pass along some of your knowledge please? I too am curious as to the actual approx. cost (to TWC) of the 10/1 connection I now have. All I have for comparison is the statement from my former coworker that a DS-3 was about 44K/mo. That was quite a few years ago though.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.


Jeopardy! replies and randomcaps REALLY suck!

ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
Yeah. The drone mindset they force upon us is quite encumbering isn't it.
--
»were.boldlygoingnowhere.org if we don't change out ways!

WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
said by ctceo:

It just costs a bit of time,effort & resources. Nothing more. Anything else is a fabrication of possession.

Let's see....$10,000 per tower site, licensed backhaul links at $10,00 a link, staffing, insurance, vehicle maintenance, equipment. That's a lot more than "a bit".

ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..

Re: What would I do?

Missing the point.

How much is all that ACTUALLY worth, other than the resources and manpower to make it happen? Think "Fruits of our labor" for a hint.

The figure of ~$10k is only an imaginary measure of drones, ahem, employees needed to accomplish this task.

Money is Debt and a measure of complacency. If you eliminate all your debt than you no longer need money. Do you want more debt?
--
»were.boldlygoingnowhere.org if we don't change out ways!

GNH
tolle causam
Premium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse

Fractured Internet

Bull. It's an opportunity to rebuild the Internet, back to its original purpose. The money and the brains to do it are here, in this country. Just need a catalyst; a good reason.

The "major players" need to be redefined, and ideally, the new players will have a renewed sense of maverick mentality and a healthy distrust of "government." Government is the real threat to the Internet, not lousy ISPs futilely trying to charge for YouTube. Do that crap and good competition will capitalize.
NyNexit

join:2009-11-01
Huntington, NY

come on FCC

Anyone else want to take bets on when ISP's will be deemed Title 2 common carriers by the FCC... I think its the only way. "the Nuclear option".
Otherwise we might have to go outside!

DavePR

join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

Re: come on FCC

You might get away with Title 2 on telco provided broadband (adsl, Fios, U-Verse) but it'll never stick to cable broadband or wireless.

You talk about fascism; who thought it would be a good idea to let the content creators control the pipes? What were they thinking?

I am very happy with my dumb pipe dsl, provided by a company that does DSL eXclusively.

WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
said by NyNexit:

Anyone else want to take bets on when ISP's will be deemed Title 2 common carriers by the FCC.

It would affect ISPs that would wish to (caution - industry buzz wards ahead) "monitize the prioritization of packets", in other words create an internet "fast lane", or to continue QoS priorities, traffic-bursting to speed up web pages (and thus slow down longer duration downloads), usage throttling, etc.

For me, I can adapt to a Title II landscape by selling different daily download limits. I can give everyone at least 1.2 Mbps and a couple of hundred MB per day. That will satisfy over 90% of my subscribers.
RJARRRPCGP

join:2010-12-17
Springfield, VT

Re: come on FCC

It won't in Windsor county, Vermont!

Stay the h*** away from Vermont! You're not welcome in Windsor county, Vermont!
borka

join:2003-04-01
Brooklyn, NY
Why are you so proud of your extremely limiting data plans?

you seem very happy to squeez your customers.

$99 for 2Mbit and ~100GB of data is WAY overpriced.

What happens if a person goes over your rediculous daily cap on the FITST billing day? now they are stuck for a whole month on 56k ??

I can see 20GB , 50GB , 100GB MONTHLY caps, and once over, you throttle.

But to throttle for the remainder of the month, for downloading ONE DVD or GAME is bull$it.

WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5

Re: come on FCC

said by borka:

you seem very happy to squeez your customers.

$99 for 2Mbit and ~100GB of data is WAY overpriced.

What happens if a person goes over your rediculous daily cap on the FITST billing day? now they are stuck for a whole month on 56k ??

But to throttle for the remainder of the month, for downloading ONE DVD or GAME is bull$it.

$99 for 100 GB is in line with lots of WISPs. 80 to 90% of my subs use less than 10 GB per month.

As I posted above,

If you go over your daily limit, you are only rate limited until the next day, not until the end of the month.

Squeezing the customers? Compared to the alternatives such as $600 to $900 for a 1.5 Mbps T1 (unlimited downloads) or $349 for 5 Mbps and 500 MB satellite, I offer a bargain.
RJARRRPCGP

join:2010-12-17
Springfield, VT

Re: come on FCC

2 Mbit costing $99 is like 2003 lol.

voipnpots2

join:2010-11-15
U.S.

1 recommendation

re

I highly disagree with this. What makes the internet the internet is the ability to access any server or network around the world at any time you want. I don't disagree with Comcast's 250GB cap, but if they were to put more "caps", I would feel I'm getting screwed. To think that they can control access to what content you get almost seems communist in a way. If you go over to a friend's house and want to use the internet, you shouldn't be limited to whatever service he's subscribed to and only have access to certain websites. You should have access to everything, and what should determine the price is the speed. If my ISP charged extra for YouTube, I would drop YouTube, because I don't use it that much.

What's going on here is greed. Websites and internet companies (as well as other companies *cough*Best Buy*cough*) are foaming at the mouth to get more money, and going against what is natural and logical just to gain more.

Unfortunately, in our society, money has taken over, and has gotten in the way of morals, common sense, and ethics.

Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium
join:2002-12-05
Blackwood, NJ

NN - a solution in search of a problem

This has yet to happen yet we're supposed to pass far-reaching legislation handing over the reigns of the internet to the federal government because it MIGHT happen? please...the Internet FLOURISHED without government "regulation" and will continue to do so as long as we keep it that way.
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png
old_wiz_60

join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

The FCC..

will certainly agree to proposals from the carriers. The carriers slip enough dirty money to Congress and the regulatory agencies to get away with pretty much anything.

This will continue until people simply stop using higher priced services. Advertisers will suffer as well since on a metered usage plan, ad blocking software will become a hot item.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Go for it! Bring it on!

I don't need YouTube or most of the uses that it seems folks here can't seem to live without. But clearly, any ISP who pulls a stunt like this will be filing Chapter 11 soon, and whoever buys up their facilities at pennies on the dollar won't make the same mistake again, and will have the added benefit of a lower cost basis.

Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1

You can keep it.

Sounds like the providers want a time machine and go back to the glory days of AOL.

Where you paid 25 Bucks a month for just 20 hours of time. Then you got a surcharge for any time over that. I remember my AOL bill hitting 100 bucks, many a month.

Granted it will be easier for cable companies to roll back to that time. They don't have to share their pipe with a 2nd or 3rd party. hence why there is no competition in the cable market.

I remember when DSL came out, the first provider in my area was winfire. Bellsouth was a few months behind, even though winfire used Bellsouth's copper.

Why can't cable companies be forced to open their pipeline to resellers like that?
Cell phones have resellers [Virgin Piggy backs on a major carriers network, as does a few other companies like it], telephone service has different providers. Sure AT&T may own the copper5, but I can use a different phone service provider if I wanted to [not that there are many out there].
So why is cable so protected? Is it because they buy seats in the government?

So getting back to topic, if they started running a tier service, I'd go with the "switch it off option".
My kids would hate it because they wouldn't get their world of warcraft. My wife would hate it because she'd miss out on facebook. I'd hate it because I'll miss out on porn.
Speaking of which, why aren't the game companies like Blizzard weighing in? How much bandwidth does a game like Warcraft/Starcraft consume in a given month. I know it may not be as much as Netflix or youtube, but I'm sure it's a decent number.
--
To All Real Dads. For All Real Moms Every Real
Service.

Kenny91

@direcway.com

Some already do this...

Look at HughesNet. If you want to watch a few Youtube videos with this ISP then you HAVE to buy the more expensive plan since they cap users at 200MB per day on their cheapest plan. Depending on the length of the videos and the quality.... that could be anywhere from 3 - 10 videos before you get fapped.

Even the $80/month package they have is limited (425MB/day).

Maybe the rest of the ISPs are finally going to restrict everyone else so we aren't the only ones suffering.
FredIsDead

join:2010-02-24
San Antonio, TX

you people are silly

These are VENDORs trying to sell something.

The equipment they have sold to ISPs is probably either sitting in a lab or one node of their network and is being used to measure network usage, so that they can tell what is long haul, CDN, metro and Netflix/torrent/software patch usage.

No one is buying this gear to put into all of their production network.

The "deal with the devil" we are getting ready to make is that the internet will stay neutral and they will just charge us by the byte. They alternatives are either getting the source side to subsidize the last mile, prioritizing traffic using this kind or equipment, or stopping the major network that are going to need to happen to move more unicast video over the internet.
ophelus

join:2004-01-11
Kansas City, MO

Plan a

I have a plan..

Let's all argue amongst ourselves and let corporate american win.. ohh that's what were doing already!

My bad

t3ln3t

@rr.com

the phone/cable companies are full of somethin'!

Back when I was still willing to work and do buisness with at&t, I couldn't believe they were doing this net nutrality bru hah-hah. Sounds to me like a bunch or horse hockey!

wait a minute, you want the companies that use your network, and ALL goto real popular sites, to pay more for the privilage of accessing those customers?

Don't they already pay to access the Internet?

I remember back in the day ... installing web caches in Pacific Bell's network.
You wouldn't think customers in VERY affluent areas of California would prefer farm-sex.com! huh ...
So does farm-sex.com pay more for access to the Internet? They already pay out the nose for all the bandwidth, and the phone/cable companies are getting money to connect the pacbell customers to the Internet? Kinda sounds like double dippin', and they want a third dip.

Maybe I'm wrong, but sounds to me like the phone/cable companies are full of somethin' and still asking for more via enema?

kw0
Premium
join:2004-06-12
New Albany, OH
kudos:6

1 recommendation

What If Your ISP Charged Extra For YouTube?

I'd go to whatever alternative took it's place. It's not rocket science.

If they implemented something like this, alternatives would pop up to eat up the users of whatever was just taken away.

They've already done it with torrent sites (albeit, in a different manner), I don't see this being much different.

•••
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

Already happened in Canada

Wireless providers in Canada have already implemented this scheme and nobody cried foul.

There have wireless data packages that grant access only to specific web sites. Thery are called "social networking packages". I wouldn't be surprised if the web sites have to pay the wireless providers to be included in that package.

These packages are aimed at teenagers. Adults who want full internet connection to access any IP or any port need to pay a huge amount more money.
razdamaschin

join:2010-08-18
Iola, WI

Already paying

I do keep seeing this question raised, but not the one related to the fact that we are already paying for that. Just begin to remember the TV ads just a few years back that were such a war on who has the fastest connection to offer and that cable is X times faster than DSL which is X times faster than dial-up and how cool it is that you can stream video and movies. THAT WAS the marketing strategy! Even now, with most companies (TDS & Charter for example) you can "chose" the faster (more expensive) pack. I do and I am happy, and now the same companies to say out loud "Well, yeah we said watching videos and movies is cool, but you're watching way to much and the fact that you're paying for the top bandwidth tear does not really mean you can actually use it" ... I can stop here for today

TimG

@comcast.net

"Net Neutrality" is a codeword for "make others p

The reaction to what the wireless carriers are doing is very uninformed. The religion of "network neutrality" is all about forcing the vast majority of us to pay for high bandwidth usage of a few companies and individuals - this drives up wireless internet pricing for all of us. This is NOT about changing the service we have now - those who want the existing options can keep them. This IS about making it possible to create service plans that are much less expensive for people who need basic connection to the internet and don't need to suck down a huge amount of bandwidth for video and pictures. The way things work right now, only 25% of the US population, and much smaller percentages in places like India, can afford wireless internet service for their cell phone. The reason is that carriers don't have a way to make specialized service plans for less expensive services. If they did, they could offer inexpensive services like basic search and browsing, location services, driving directions, all you can eat text, all you can eat email body (the words but not downlaods) with the option to pay a little extra when you need a download on your phone - all at a price everyone who has a phone can afford. The carriers could also charge facebook and netflix to get them to pay for the bandwidth they are using instead of forcing the rest of us to pay for their business expenses to get to the releatively small percentage of users who consume the vast majority of the data services for these companies - while the companies freeload. The problem with a "once size fits all" plan is that the 95% of us who use about 500 mega bytes per month end up paying $30 to $40 per month rather than a smaller amount because there are less than 5% of people who hog bandwidth by doing things like connecting their computer or even entire home network through their cell phone, camping on facebook or downloading DVD quality or even HD quality movies. Bandwidth costs the carriers money - about $0.04 per megabyte on 3G and half that or so for 4G AFTER the 4G $20 billion cost is paid for the spectrum and equipment. So, on 3G it costs a carrier about $40 if you download a standard definition movie on your smart phone during peak hours and about $200 if you download an HD movie. The way things work now, you and I pay for the people who do this by paying more every month for our service so that the users who are doing it and netflix get a free ride. My vote is to let people who want to do this kind of thing pay for it and the vast majority of the rest of us who use our smart phones for internet search, light internet browsing, text, email body, driving directions, location services etc. can get these services for less money - and people who can't afford internet now will become connected. Of course the other option is to let the government dictate terms on how the carriers charge for wireless internet service - then we can all pay a big extra price for our wireless service so that netflix's and facebook don't have to pay for the bandwidth their business models consume and so that the small percentage of us who watch movie downloads on cell phones can keep doing this without really paying for what it actually costs. Then we can get the government to make the utility companies give us "net neutral" power and "net neutral" cable TV - so we can all pay extra for those carrier services too. My vote is let the carriers offer more service options for those of us who want to stop paying for bandwidth hogging companies and individuals.
TimGdsnd

join:2010-12-20
Palo Alto, CA

"Net Neutrality" really means "No Cheap Wireless Internet"

The reaction to what the wireless carriers are doing is very uninformed. The religion of "network neutrality" is all about forcing the vast majority of us to pay for high bandwidth usage of a few companies and individuals - this drives up wireless internet pricing for all of us. This is NOT about changing the service we have now - those who want the existing options can keep them. This IS about making it possible to create service plans that are much less expensive for people who need basic connection to the internet and don't need to suck down a huge amount of bandwidth for video and pictures. The way things work right now, only 25% of the US population, and much smaller percentages in places like India, can afford wireless internet service for their cell phone. The reason is that carriers don't have a way to make specialized service plans for less expensive services. If they did, they could offer inexpensive services like basic search and browsing, location services, driving directions, all you can eat text, all you can eat email body (the words but not downlaods) with the option to pay a little extra when you need a download on your phone - all at a price everyone who has a phone can afford. The carriers could also charge facebook and netflix to get them to pay for the bandwidth they are using instead of forcing the rest of us to pay for their business expenses to get to the releatively small percentage of users who consume the vast majority of the data services for these companies - while the companies freeload. The problem with a "once size fits all" plan is that the 95% of us who use about 500 mega bytes per month end up paying $30 to $40 per month rather than a smaller amount because there are less than 5% of people who hog bandwidth by doing things like connecting their computer or even entire home network through their cell phone, camping on facebook or downloading DVD quality or even HD quality movies. Bandwidth costs the carriers money - about $0.04 per megabyte on 3G and half that or so for 4G AFTER the 4G $20 billion cost is paid for the spectrum and equipment. So, on 3G it costs a carrier about $40 if you download a standard definition movie on your smart phone during peak hours and about $200 if you download an HD movie. The way things work now, you and I pay for the people who do this by paying more every month for our service so that the users who are doing it and netflix get a free ride. My vote is to let people who want to do this kind of thing pay for it and the vast majority of the rest of us who use our smart phones for internet search, light internet browsing, text, email body, driving directions, location services etc. can get these services for less money - and people who can't afford internet now will become connected. Of course the other option is to let the government dictate terms on how the carriers charge for wireless internet service - then we can all pay a big extra price for our wireless service so that netflix's and facebook don't have to pay for the bandwidth their business models consume and so that the small percentage of us who watch movie downloads on cell phones can keep doing this without really paying for what it actually costs. Then we can get the government to make the utility companies give us "net neutral" power and "net neutral" cable TV - so we can all pay extra for those carrier services too. My vote is let the carriers offer more service options for those of us who want to stop paying for bandwidth hogging companies and individuals.