 en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | In general, it would come down to pricing... Eg. If Cable offered $30/month for a 6 Mbps tier for the first 10GB and 768kbps after that per month... would people use it? This would be compared to the standard $55/month package for 6Mbps unlimited (essentially a 'powerboost' to the low end 768kbps tier). I think you might get a lot of people going for it.
The problem is typically that Cable doesn't want to have its price lowered.., and would rather give 16Mbps for $65 and then cap it at 100GB. -- Canada = Hollywood North |
 bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus | reply to fAcEtIOUs I think the complaint is a lack of competition based on the idea that more competition in services is better than less.
Yes, there is competition between the three main ways of getting broadband (four in some places) - MSOs, ILECs, Satellite (and in some places, wireless), but more would be much better. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
 | reply to fAcEtIOUs As usual, you are comparing apples to oranges. For the individual, there is no competition, they are FORCED to pay whatever the megacorp thinks they can gouge out of them. For the GROUP, there is competition, because companies come and go all the time.
If there was TRUE competition, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. If I had a choice of 10 providers, I would pick the one that DIDN'T charge me by the byte, and let me use what I pay for. That provider would get EVERYONE's business, because, if you read the article, NO-ONE LIKES BY THE BYTE.
The only reason the Australians put up with it, because.. (drum roll please), THEY HAVE NO COMPETITION. -- Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |