 not
@comcast.net | This chic is crazy Here I am waiting for the hungry cell phone companies to just break down and flat rate for unlimited minutes and she wants to take broadband several steps back. How do these people (without a clue) get in these offices, let alone how did she become a Public Policy lecturer without having a clue as to where the public should be going in the future. Step forward, not backward people!
Here's her email, let her know how you feel. elaine_kamarck@harvard.edu |
|
1 edit | said by not :
Here I am waiting for the hungry cell phone companies to just break down and flat rate for unlimited minutes and she wants to take broadband several steps back. How do these people (without a clue) get in these offices, let alone how did she become a Public Policy lecturer without having a clue as to where the public should be going in the future. Step forward, not backward people!
Maybe it is you that doesn't have a clue, and not her. She is saying what most likely WILL happen. You are saying what you WANT to happen. They are not the same thing.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·Charter
| reply to not
Cell / Voice minutes are easy. They are small bandwidth, predictable and typically don't increase, they just move from landline to VoIP to cell, etc. This model changes when cell companies start offering data services and this is why data based cell service does have pay / use models.
Data bandwidth is like electricity, water, gas, etc. People will consume as much as possible if there is no incremental cost (to them) in doing so. |
|
|
|
| I agree with NOT. But im not worried. You will never see pay by the byte or whatever they want to call it. It makes no sense and would be a step backwards. I could see if these companies were losing money but fact is as a whole they are not losing anything. For every bandwidth hogg theres 10 more people whos modem barely breaks a sweat. Its about dollars and cents (or sense) frankly pay by the byte doesnt make either. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Charter
| FLATLINE, Bicker had another post in this thread that summarized what you don't want to hear, but is reality.
said by bicker:In other words, the average users subsidize the heavy users. That differential will eventually vanish. The differential MAY vanish with more mainstream p2p or HD video delivery changing the budgeted year over year bandwidth increments needed to scale the networks. If bandwidth grows on the same 40% / year average, then don't worry. Everything will continue as normal.
Yes, ISPs are making a good margins today on services, but if things dramatically change and the margins drastically drop, the system will have to change. This will impact ALL ISPs and all will eventually change. Users "NOT liking it" won't really matter. There is historical precedent in the commercial space around this.
What is interesting is that many that THINK they are heavy users typically are not and would not be impacted by tiered billing. That said, why would you want to subsidize the person with the 3 terabit disk array in their basement downloading 5 DVDs / day and serving them back to users in China? Don't people want to pay their allocation of bandwidth vs subsidizing the top 2%? I know I do. |
|
lordjimPremium
join:2004-03-26
Deerfield, IL | reply to fAcEtIOUs
No, she's saying what she thinks should happen, what (in her opinion) must happen for the Internet to "survive" (whatever that means.) And most of us happen to disagree with her. ISPs and Tier 1 providers are businesses, and if the service levels they are offering fall below the minimum for which customers will pay, they will fail. They're walking a fine line, and any kind of per-byte charge in the U.S. would result in a significant backlash.
For the majority of Internet users, it is still a convenience, a luxury, not a necessity. As others here have pointed out, if they went to per-byte billing, Internet access would be far too risky for most people. ISPs could easily find broadband penetration taking major steps backwards if they play this wrong.
That doesn't mean they won't screw up: we aren't talking the sharpest knives in the drawer here. |
|
| reply to devnuller
I hear what your saying and to your point about subsidizing other users...your right I dont really want to subsidize their usage either but I dont want a cap on my internet. My usage is sporadic. From month to month its never the same and I dont want to have to worry about how much Im using. Its fine the way it is. Those people that abuse their connections can be dealt with in any number of ways. Bottom line: If this was going to happen it would have already. The ISP's may want this but are deathly afraid of the backlash. They dont want people jumping ship now and people will like gangbusters if this happens. It would be like a free for all musical chairs deal. Sure one ISP may gain back customers to replace lost ones but all that just does is add more costs. Its cheaper to keep the customers you have as opposed to getting new ones to replace regardless of how. On a monthly basis I pay one fee for gas, electric, cell phone, rent, car payment, and internet. Im going to keep it that way as long as I can. Why because it works. |
|
