 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | Lemme Get This Straight Carriers are MORE likely to build additional infrastructure if they're allowed to simply sit on existing infrastructure, but partition it up and charge extra for "priority" service on that existing infrastructure?
-tom |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | I believe the argument is that they'd have more incentive to invest in infrastructure if high-bandwidth services helped pay for them.
Not necessarily my view, but that's how I view the argument. The money will have to come from somewhere, and likely it will come from subscribers in some form or another, be it higher rates or having to pay for extra bandwidth or certain services. If there's an easy answer, it eludes me. |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | said by dynodb:I believe the argument is that they'd have more incentive to invest in infrastructure if high-bandwidth services helped pay for them. Not necessarily my view, but that's how I view the argument. The money will have to come from somewhere, and likely it will come from subscribers in some form or another, be it higher rates or having to pay for extra bandwidth or certain services. If there's an easy answer, it eludes me. Bandwidth is a funny thing: the more quality banwidth you have, the more people you can sell to. More sales targets means more potential revenue.
If you starve customers of bandwidth, those that are casual users will go away. The serious users will find other avenues. Either way, the customer base goes away. While you don't have to sink more money into new capacity, you have less customers to support the capacity's recurring costs.
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis |
|
