pfsmith
join:2006-11-16
Lafayette, IN
1 edit | reply to Joe12345678
Re: Just Like the Electric Company! Really?! It's NOT the same??
Seems to me that bandwidth isn't FREE. If it was, we'd all have INFINITE BANDWIDTH, RIGHT?
Someone, somewhere, has to spend money to provide it to you.
That alone makes it the same as power and water and any other utility.
I ask again... why shouldn't those that use it the most pay the most?
Why should I subsidize a heavier user than me?
If my electric bill paid for other's usage, I'd be pretty unhappy about that... wouldn't you? |
| said by pfsmith:Really?! It's NOT the same?? Seems to me that bandwidth isn't FREE. If it was, we'd all have INFINITE BANDWIDTH, RIGHT? Someone, somewhere, has to spend money to provide it to you. That alone makes it the same as power and water and any other utility. I ask again... why shouldn't those that use it the most pay the most? Why should I subsidize a heavier user than me? If my electric bill paid for other's usage, I'd be pretty unhappy about that... wouldn't you? Why do you assume that you are subsidizing a heavier user? Unless you know the model that the internet providing is using you don't know if the average user is subsidizing the heavy user. The model the ISPs are using is over subscription, in this model, the average user is not subsidizing the heavy user. |
pfsmith
join:2006-11-16
Lafayette, IN
1 edit | Why do I assume?
Because I understand the ECONOMICS of what is actually happening here. It's traditionally known as the "Tragedy of the Commons" and is VERY well understood and very applicable to the behavior of people in this situation.
See:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Quote: "The "Tragedy of the Commons" is a structural relationship between free access to, and unrestricted demand for a finite resource."
Calling it a different business model DOES NOT change what is actually going on... that is, SOME users hog the pipe because there's NO ECONOMIC INCENTIVE to NOT DO OTHERWISE. If we all pay the same rate for a scarce resource (bandwidth, in this case) and are ALL FREE to take as much of that resource as we can grab, then SOME USERS will ABUSE THE PRIVILEDGE. This costs all of us, either in increased costs (above what we actually consume), or it will cost us in terms of degraded service (because the resource has been hogged).
If you believe that those that don't hog the pipe aren't subsidizing the heavier user then you are clueless. Calling it "oversubscribition" doesn't change the what and why of what is actually going on economically.
Until the ISPs find a way to bill according to usage - just like any other utility company - then this will continue to be a problem. Period.
What form that billing can/should take, I dunno. But ANYTHING resembling a pay-for-usage model would be better than what we have right now, and would most certainly result in better broadband coverage, services, and penetration for everyone (except those heavy users who would complain about having to pay for what they actually consume - they wouldn't like it, of course).
And, just so you know... I'm PROBABLY one of those heavy users: I have six children (three teenagers), 5 desktop PCs, several IPODs, etc. in my household. One of my sons and I are in the Information Systems business. We download A LOT! I'm perfectly happy to take responsibility for the bandwidth that I use when the ISPs get this figured out. The problem is that some heavy users (read: WHINERS) don't want to take that responsibility. They think everything should be flat rate, or even free (see: health care, etc.). They're in for a rude awakening as this economic model is simply not sustainable. |
