| Charge the end user, if anyone Why not charge the end user for what QOS they want to have? If the end user knew coming into an agreement with a service provider that they were lumped in with "everybody else", then there should be some understanding when it comes to bandwidth crunch time. The end user should then have the option of a higher priority tier, which would escape some of the problems of being lumped in with "everybody else".
Of course, the ISP better be prepared to deliver to the higher tier... |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
Why not charge the end user for what QOS they want to have?
Because the goal here is to increase income to subsidize next-gen network deployment without making it obvious they've raised prices. Get their cake and eat it too.
They charge content providers more, who then pass those costs on to you. You blame the content provider for higher-prices, while getting only marginal improvement in your connectivity quality. Not entirely unlike the "regulatory recovery fee" tacked on your phone bill, which is really just a rate hike, but disguised as an official fee so you direct your ire at Uncle Sam, not the provider.
These are men who have made a delicate and beautiful art out of screwing you. |
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | said by Karl Bode: ... You blame the content provider for higher-prices, while getting only marginal improvement in your connectivity quality. ... I would add only that you might end up blaming the content provider for "higher-prices or more PITA ads," which is what we may see.
Well put, Karl.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
