| i hate the idea over all i hate the idea, why should people be penalized more for using their connection more? i think there would be drastic changes in the internet usage in the US. i wonder how long before people start suggesting Youtube videos are $X/byte, regular web traffic is $Y/byte, search engine A is $Z/byte, and so on. people are saying different traffic should be handled differently, why not also by different pay rates by the byte?
i hope the days of a 'free' (unrestricted) and open internet won't end anytime soon. the internet is a great resource to world and it would be pity to see it be butchered up by corporations, governments, or the oh so wonderful UN. there is an increasing need for real Net Neutrality bill that say what a corporation (or the government) can and can not do concerning the internet connections to the internet. i'm not sure if something like this will see the light of day anytime soon.
that being said, i think a SMALL charge may not be a bad idea for those that use an insane amount of bandwidth AND hurt other customers experience, but also factoring in the quality of the network (old equipment, slow network to begin with, etc.). this is more to keep it so that one person can't degrade everyone else's experience. |
|
| Oh please those of us that hammer the connection 24/7 are just using what we have been provided. If the ISP can't handle a few people using the max capacity all the time then they need to fix their network. NOT charge us more to use it. |
|
| said by haplo2112:If the ISP can't handle a few people using the max capacity all the time then they need to fix their network. NOT charge us more to use it. Wrong.
Outside of fairy tails, there is no such thing as a network which cannot be bogged down by a relatively small number of users who max out their connections 24 / 7.
But, What about FiOS though?
Know this -- FiOS, while a truly awesome product, still has limitations. I believe they are working on deploying 64 way splitters, so let's think about that. Even with GPON cards, the absolute max bandwidth available to all 64 customers at one time would be 37.5 Mbps (2400 Mbps divided 64 ways). Okay, so that means that all 64 users could use 37 Mbps simultaneously, right? Wrong. Of that 37 Mbps per user, you have to factor in FiOS TV streams too. Also, don't forget that some users already have 50 Mbps FiOS Internet service, and Verizon is exploring the possibility of 100 Mbps service too...
When you make statements like "they need to fix their network" you demonstrate your lack of understanding of basic networking. I'm not saying this to be a jerk, but there's another side of the situation that you either don't know about or refuse to acknowledge for some reason.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to cornelius785
said by cornelius785:over all i hate the idea, why should people be penalized more for using their connection more? It's only considered a penalty if it is an extension of the idea that someone who uses the Internet is an abuser deserving of punishment. If charges are penalistic, of course that would not be held up by the market place. If charges are cost-based, then I assert that would be held up by the market place. It can definately go usage-based in that scenereo. I think you hit the nail on the head with your misunderstanding in pointing out the misapplication of the concept of usage-based charging in the first place. |
|
| reply to Done_Posting
Actually I do networking for a living and I am quite good at it with 18+ years in the field. However that isn't really the point.
OK, I have tried three times to write this next part and its complicated to express.
I am OK if my connection doesn't go at 5/512 all the time, I expect that network conditions might prevent that there are others that need bandwidth too. Thats fine gotta share. However if no one else is chewing up the bandwidth on my node why not me. If others are going full blast like me then its going to start to slow the whole network somewhat. In that case the ISP (just like we might inside a comapny needs company) needs to make network changes to help with the crunch. |
|
|
|
| said by haplo2112:If others are going full blast like me then its going to start to slow the whole network somewhat. In that case the ISP (just like we might inside a comapny needs company) needs to make network changes to help with the crunch. I won't dispute that it's a good idea to allow excess bandwidth to be used -- in fact, I downright love the concept; it reminds me of "Powerboost."
What kind of changes do you propose an ISP make though? In my mind, there are two possibilities -- bandwidth management (traffic shaping), and infrastructure upgrade. Bandwidth management is a given and should be employed on every network. Infrastructure upgrades can be expensive, and investors want to see ISP's make the most profit with the least amount of expense. I know I sound like a broken record when I cite Verizon over and over, but Verizon's investors took a crap in their pants when it was revealed how much capital had initially been spent to deploy FiOS. Thankfully they came around and appreciated how revolutionary the product was (for the US anyway) and allowed rollout to continue, albeit at a more conservative pace.
At the end of the day, bandwidth, like most everything in life, is just a big juggling act.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
