how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
555 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
1 edit | Sounds like LR editor advocating per byte bb The Light Reading editor may not be advocating a pure version of paying by the byte. But in his suggestion of a tiered service based on "bandwidth used" vs "all you can eat" tiers based on speeds, he is coming pretty close. I wonder how that suggestion will be received?
»www.lightreading.com/document.as···tease3_2
And the people who pay for better experience should get it, rather than those who don't. I, for one, don’t want to pay the same amount of money for bandwidth while a 15-year old neighbor spends all day sucking most of it up with his limitless, gray-market BitTorrent downloads. If my adolescent neighbor wants to spend all day playing high-quality real-time online gaming, he should have to pay for it. Downloading illegal Widespread Panic bootlegs and playing multiplayer Quake doesn't mean you are carrying forward the cradle of democracy
Would charging more for such activities mean extortion? Please. Are the airlines extorting you because they require you to pay $300 for a seat to fly across the country? Well then, go Greyhound.
The industry has to create value by aggregating the capabilities of the network, coming up with new services, and generating additional revenues by charging customers for them.
In the end, tiered services, or quality of service (QOS), is inevitable. It's not a dirty word. And it won't threaten democracy. Surfing the Web has already been established as the baseline for Internet service – which is in fact a best-effort service that shouldn't require any special engineering or fees.
As far as I can tell, nobody's proposing to charge you extra so that you can read Bawdy Bill's Blog.
Tiered services? Get over it. It's the way the world works. As for me I have no problem with tiers based on bandwidth consumed instead of speeds.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album | |
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | said by fAcEtIOUs:The Light Reading editor may not be advocating a pure version of paying by the byte. But in his suggestion of a tiered service based on "bandwidth used" vs "all you can eat" tiers based on speeds, he is coming pretty close. I wonder how that suggestion will be received? » www.lightreading.com/document.as···tease3_2And the people who pay for better experience should get it, rather than those who don't. I, for one, don’t want to pay the same amount of money for bandwidth while a 15-year old neighbor spends all day sucking most of it up with his limitless, gray-market BitTorrent downloads. If my adolescent neighbor wants to spend all day playing high-quality real-time online gaming, he should have to pay for it. Downloading illegal Widespread Panic bootlegs and playing multiplayer Quake doesn't mean you are carrying forward the cradle of democracy
Would charging more for such activities mean extortion? Please. Are the airlines extorting you because they require you to pay $300 for a seat to fly across the country? Well then, go Greyhound.
The industry has to create value by aggregating the capabilities of the network, coming up with new services, and generating additional revenues by charging customers for them.
In the end, tiered services, or quality of service (QOS), is inevitable. It's not a dirty word. And it won't threaten democracy. Surfing the Web has already been established as the baseline for Internet service – which is in fact a best-effort service that shouldn't require any special engineering or fees.
As far as I can tell, nobody's proposing to charge you extra so that you can read Bawdy Bill's Blog.
Tiered services? Get over it. It's the way the world works. As for me I have no problem with tiers based on bandwidth consumed instead of speeds. What a surprise: you sided with the more-money-for-corporations opinion?
No way...
No way we should pay by bandiwdth in 2006. There's no such billing anywhere on this world, the available bandwidth is already there but these greedy motherfuckers simply want to avoid spending a fuckin dime on long-overdue upgrades.
It's clear as 1-2-3. | |
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
LR editor advocating per byte bb--Good Idea! I, for one, have little opposition to "bandwidth consumed" or "per byte" pricing--it sends the right signals to the market, and most importantly it allows ISPs and content providers to compete directly to ensure that the ISPs (offering various tiers) and the content providers (offering diverse datastreams) to the end user consumer also offer the best choice and price available. Economic barriers to entry remain low and low cost providers can bring their benefits to the market.
Additionally, the pressure remains on both ISPs and content providers to minimize the costs of serving their customers. ISPs will seek the lowest cost peering points and other connections with the most popular content providers and content providers will seek to make their content widely available over fast, inexpensive connections to the "Internet cloud".
Otherwise, under the whining baby bell's proposals, the various forms of "improved service" don't compete directly--they are controlled by the terms of the "under the table" agreements cut between the major content providers and ISPs, and until a new ISP or content provider can get dealt into that gravy train they may be effectively shut out of the market. Incentives move from providing the best possible end user experience to shifting the end user to doing business with your "partners". Whether that means a content provider pimps for partner ISPs or an ISP shoves its customers to partner content providers, it lessens, rather than enhances, the end user experience.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | said by calvoiper:I, for one, have little opposition to "bandwidth consumed" or "per byte" pricing--it sends the right signals to the market, and most importantly it allows ISPs and content providers to compete directly to ensure that the ISPs (offering various tiers) and the content providers (offering diverse datastreams) to the end user consumer also offer the best choice and price available. Economic barriers to entry remain low and low cost providers can bring their benefits to the market. Additionally, the pressure remains on both ISPs and content providers to minimize the costs of serving their customers. ISPs will seek the lowest cost peering points and other connections with the most popular content providers and content providers will seek to make their content widely available over fast, inexpensive connections to the "Internet cloud". Otherwise, under the whining baby bell's proposals, the various forms of "improved service" don't compete directly--they are controlled by the terms of the "under the table" agreements cut between the major content providers and ISPs, and until a new ISP or content provider can get dealt into that gravy train they may be effectively shut out of the market. Incentives move from providing the best possible end user experience to shifting the end user to doing business with your "partners". Whether that means a content provider pimps for partner ISPs or an ISP shoves its customers to partner content providers, it lessens, rather than enhances, the end user experience. calvoiper I fully oppose this retarded per-byte measurement which would serve nothing but a very nice leeway for cable giants to NOT to upgrade their current, outdating networks but rather making extra money by slicing up the internet.
Also it would suddenly tie the usefulness of your internet connection to your wallet.
This is completely crazy. Whoever wants this, that person is out of his right mind. | | |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Note 1 -- when replying to a post, if you're the first reply, it's not necessary to repeat the whole thing. It wastes space. (But thanks for thinking so much about what I wrote that you thought people needed to see it again!)
Note 2 -- when replying to an economic argument, it's often better to meet the economic portions of the argument directly and show how you think they are inappropriate. Just calling them "retarded" or "crazy" doesn't do a very good job of refuting them.
Note 3 -- since broadband already costs more than dialup, and generally costs more the broader it is, how can you say that the usefulness of your Internet connection isn't already tied to your wallet?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| reply to kamm
Re: Sounds like LR editor advocating per byte bb Actually, a lot of wireless ISPs charge by the bits used. That is do to the fact a wireless network tends to have a lot less available bandwidth that needs to be shared amongst consumers.
I do not favor a pure per bit pricing scheme, but leveled tiers definitely should be available. Lite accounts for people who want more then 56k, but don't need the average 1.5mb, and HIGH CLASS for people needing 3mb or more.
In the end, consumers will be the ones that have to pay. They are either going to have to through their access providers or their content providers. Since content providers are already paying for Internet access, it makes since that the companies complaining they can't pay their bills (the ILECs) should raise their costs to the consumer.
By offering tiers, Bells can insure only the ball hogs pay more. Pay doing QoS, every consumer pays more as content companies have to raise rates to compensate and companies that can't afford to pay lose all QoS they would have under a packet neutral network.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
| reply to kamm
No way we should pay by bandiwdth in 2006. There's no such billing anywhere on this world, the available bandwidth is already there but these greedy motherfuckers simply want to avoid spending a fuckin dime on long-overdue upgrades.
EXACTLY THAT IS WHAT PISSES ME OFF THE MOST. THE AUDACITY THESE IMBECILIES HAVE IS REDICULOUS. It is really sad the lengths these fools will goto to keep from upgrading. Then they have the nerve to charge more for crappy service. | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | reply to calvoiper
Re: LR editor advocating per byte bb--Good Idea! said by calvoiper:Note 1 -- when replying to a post, if you're the first reply, it's not necessary to repeat the whole thing. It wastes space. (But thanks for thinking so much about what I wrote that you thought people needed to see it again!) Note 2 -- when replying to an economic argument, it's often better to meet the economic portions of the argument directly and show how you think they are inappropriate. Just calling them "retarded" or "crazy" doesn't do a very good job of refuting them. Note 3 -- since broadband already costs more than dialup, and generally costs more the broader it is, how can you say that the usefulness of your Internet connection isn't already tied to your wallet? calvoiper STOP implying they pay more - THEY DO NOT. I REPEAT: THEY DO NOT PAY MORE if a 15 yr old kid downloads a lot.
Stop coming up with this stupid false argument.
And perhaps it'd help if you'd read up frist - we already said why it's retarded to promote any kind of byte-based billing. | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Stop implying who pays more?
I haven't been "implying" ISPs "pay more", I have been STATING a fact--since ISPs do, in fact, use some shared facilities which have to be expanded as overall usage goes up, they do see increased costs when their average user increases the intensity of his use.
This doesn't change their obligation to provide the service they sold--it just increases their cost pressure, and that pressure will find an "out" somehow, either through increased revenue, decreased service, etc. (This is no different than a fast food place seeing one of its costs of business go up--it doesn't change their obligation to deliver the product sold, but something will have to cover the increased cost.)
Call me or my arguments names if you want, it doesn't change the facts or the community's perception of them.
Finally, I'm still eager to learn how you think the present Internet pricing schemes aren't "tied to your wallet".
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
