| reply to Matt
Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ... Educate yourself.
»www.ipsphereforum.org/index.html
Far from limited to ILECs...pay per use is coming as soon as the logistics are figured out. (S)/he is correct.
Pretty tough to build a business where customers pay less than the costs to serve them (even on average). Incorrect signals produce long term problematic results (fiscally as well as engineering wise, which are fiscally as well).
I think you are on to something...and it probably addresses the "network neutrality" issue as well. All ISPs should build a model that satisfies their direct customers at a price point that their customers are satisfied. Obviously there are customers that are willing to pay for more bandwidth, such as yourself, and should do so if your demands exceed the "average person". Business rates in telecom have always been driven under similar ideals...the network is engineered for peak usage at x connectivity/quality, which was/is in turn driven by the business user. The internet pricing model, as far as consumer dsl/cable is still far from that model from a pricing perspective, but from an engineering perspective,
the network is designed to meet the needs of the people paying for premium connectivity (dedicated lines / higher priority), not the average consumer.
Even the smallest of ISPs have followed this model since dial up days in my recollection. |
|
 KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | reply to openbox9
So if you annoy a wealthy neighbor and he decides to set some packets to 500k and ping your connection repeatedly for a week, you'll be cool with paying for that bandwidth, right?
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by KoolMoe:So if you annoy a wealthy neighbor and he decides to set some packets to 500k and ping your connection repeatedly for a week, you'll be cool with paying for that bandwidth, right? KM Do the American thing and SUE! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to KoolMoe
Wow, pinging with 500K packets....that's interesting. How is that any different than my annoying neighbor calling me on my cell phone and using my minutes? I suppose you don't want to be responsible for the TCP overhead involved in your connection to eh net either? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Matt
Ok, but the post your linked to was "said by" jsouth  . If you really want me to respond to another's post, I will 
said by Matt:said by jsouth:Actually he is partially right here. They should expand their capacity, but they shouldn't do it for those who routinely download gigabytes of material a month and strain the system. I'm not talking about 50 or even 100gigs. I'm talking about those users who download 300-400gigs a month every month. I agree. However, usage of the percentage model is flawed. What if average usage was 500MB a month and you happened to download 3 GB a month because you receive and send lots of videos to your family? You are now the unprofitable customer - or the low percentile bandwidth hog - is it time for you to go? While I definitely don't believe in the pay-per-byte method, I like to tease TCH. He is completely entitled to his opinions, as am I, but I am also entitled to tease him about them.  I'm not sure what you mean by "usage as a percentage model". I don't think any ISP is going to boot you for transferring 3 GB a month. Of course, if the ISP stipulates a cap of 2 GB in the TOS and you utilize 3 GB, then yes, they can boot you. Any other non-related posts you'd like me to respond to? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to axus
said by axus:I don't think providers can get much profit per byte. It's about not losing money per byte.said by axus:Compare that to when providers are charging very profitable rates on 90% of the people, the 10% have to use a LOT of bandwidth to erase the advantage. Not necessarily true. ISPs will still continue to profit on 90% of the customers, but they will profit even more on the 10% that use more.said by axus:The status quo is more profitable for cable and phone companies than the per byte model. The status quo is good enough if you exclude the 10% of high bandwidth users. It's not otherwise, that's why those users are getting capped, throttled, booted, etc. |
|
