bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Longmont, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to BosstonesOwn
Re: Good.
Stating an unpopular opinion isn't trolling, it's opening up discussion.
The vast majority of internet users aren't anywhere near 50 or 60 gigs a month, much less the 100 gigs in a month that might get you in dutch with your ISP currently. Maybe those that are in those upper reaches of data consumption should pay a premium?
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau |
|
Frank
is chilling
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by bent  :Stating an unpopular opinion isn't trolling, it's opening up discussion. The vast majority of internet users aren't anywhere near 50 or 60 gigs a month, much less the 100 gigs in a month that might get you in dutch with your ISP currently. Maybe those that are in those upper reaches of data consumption should pay a premium? in 1996 the vast majority of internet users paid for internet access by the hour and used dialup connections. Any overusage meant you had to pay really expensive fees. The entire reason this stopped was because of competition, most companies which did not adopt the 'unlimited usage' model went out of business. To me this is a step backwards and I forsee many more isps stupid enough to implement this going out of business.
This may work in canada because bell canada practically has in my opinion what I would consider a monopoly but i'm pretty sure that there are marketing teams for various isps in the US that are just salivating at the type of commercials they can run against the first major isp in the u.s. to be stupid enough to try this.
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida  |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by Frank :said by bent :Stating an unpopular opinion isn't trolling, it's opening up discussion. The vast majority of internet users aren't anywhere near 50 or 60 gigs a month, much less the 100 gigs in a month that might get you in dutch with your ISP currently. Maybe those that are in those upper reaches of data consumption should pay a premium? in 1996 the vast majority of internet users paid for internet access by the hour and used dialup connections. Any overusage meant you had to pay really expensive fees. The entire reason this stopped was because of competition, most companies which did not adopt the 'unlimited usage' model went out of business. To me this is a step backwards and I forsee many more isps stupid enough to implement this going out of business. This may work in canada because bell canada practically has in my opinion what I would consider a monopoly but i'm pretty sure that there are marketing teams for various isps in the US that are just salivating at the type of commercials they can run against the first major isp in the u.s. to be stupid enough to try this. There is one major difference between the 1996 situation and today. IN 1996, you could move to a new dial-up ISP. Today, you can NOT move to a new Cable ISP since you are in a Take-It-or-Leave-It situation due to there being only one Cable Company per area. If you are lucky enough to have a AT&T U-whatever-it-is-called or Verizon FIOS option you can switch to them (assuming that they do not try this stunt also) or downgrade to whatever speed of DSL your local Telco offers but that is your only other options except to just drop Internet Access or pay the blackmail fees to your Cable Company. |
|
maartena
Obama 2008
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
April 10th, @05:54PM
| reply to bent
said by bent :Stating an unpopular opinion isn't trolling, it's opening up discussion. The vast majority of internet users aren't anywhere near 50 or 60 gigs a month, much less the 100 gigs in a month that might get you in dutch with your ISP currently. Maybe those that are in those upper reaches of data consumption should pay a premium? The idea itself, "pay for what you use" is not a bad idea. But then I don't want to pay $50 for my broadband connection either, I want to pay a $10 flat fee, just as you would pay a flat baseline fee to your electricity provider that is about the same amount, and then pay for usage on top of that.
I don't mind paying $10 for broadband, maybe have 2 Gb of free data included to prevent complaints about spam and un-authorized traffic you didn't ask for, and then pay $1 per Gb. If I download 15 Gb, my bill will be $25, and if I go crazy one month, it may be $100.
I don't mind that. But don't go adding charges to my already expensive broadband. If you offer "unlimited", don't complain if I have a 1 Mbps video stream running most of the day because the cable company don't offer that particular channel on the TV lineup. :P
Having said that, the amount of traffic is ever-increasing. It's not the torrents or p2p that ISP's now are complaining about, it is the bandwidth from online video sites. In Great Brittain the BBC launched its online TV service last year (only for Brittons on a Brittish IP address due to broadcast rights) and it is so hugely succesfull it has ISP's complaining about users actually using it.
Here in the US, more and more channels are putting their TV shows online after they have aired (with built in commercials) and quite frankly, if I forgot to record a show and they have it available, I use those kind of services.
VOIP is becoming increasingly more popular, especially for long distance calls. There are actually people that I know of that have a Vonage line just to chat with their parents on the other side of the country.
iTunes is increasingly popular, just like other legal MP3 websites. Youtube is bookmarked on pretty much every teen's computer and used extensively. My 14 year old niece has answered "I am youtubing" on my question what she was doing on the internet.
If you have a family of four, mom, dad and two teenage kids, chances are you will actually hit 50 Gb of traffic a month just using the internet. My Windows Update just downloaded about 500 megs of updates because of Vista SP1. Two months back it was 300 megs because of Office 2007 SP1. Imagine having 4 or 5 PC's in your house running different versions of Windows and Office or MacOS, all needing updates..... just updating your PC's, including the virus definitions 3 times a week or so, can add up to 2 Gb a month alone.
And it's going to get more and more. Steam sells you games online with 4 Gb downloads. World of Warcraft gives you 800 meg updates and sells the 2 Gb expansion online. Netflix just launched its download service, for a fixed price a month you can download movies that you can burn to DVD yourself, which I can only imagine are at least 1 Gb or so downloads (compressed) per movie, if not more.
If you are a techie like me, you sometimes like to try new Linux distros. 600 megs for the basic CD's, but 4 Gb for the DVD version. I have downloaded as much as 4 different distros on DVD in 1 week.
We are not living in the age of "e-mail and browse the web" anymore. You could get by with 10 Gb.... about 10 years ago. Now, it is not uncommon to have to add a 0 to it if you have an active, online family.
ISP's need to increase their bandwidth, because people are continuing to be hungry for it. Punishing them will only hold technology back.
Who's gonna pay for it? Well, I know for a FACT that bandwidth on the high-end scale is getting cheaper. DS3's are selling for $3k now, about 5 years ago you would have to shell out at least $7k for a DS3.
--
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father. |
|
Frank
is chilling
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL :said by Frank :said by bent :Stating an unpopular opinion isn't trolling, it's opening up discussion. The vast majority of internet users aren't anywhere near 50 or 60 gigs a month, much less the 100 gigs in a month that might get you in dutch with your ISP currently. Maybe those that are in those upper reaches of data consumption should pay a premium? in 1996 the vast majority of internet users paid for internet access by the hour and used dialup connections. Any overusage meant you had to pay really expensive fees. The entire reason this stopped was because of competition, most companies which did not adopt the 'unlimited usage' model went out of business. To me this is a step backwards and I forsee many more isps stupid enough to implement this going out of business. This may work in canada because bell canada practically has in my opinion what I would consider a monopoly but i'm pretty sure that there are marketing teams for various isps in the US that are just salivating at the type of commercials they can run against the first major isp in the u.s. to be stupid enough to try this. There is one major difference between the 1996 situation and today. IN 1996, you could move to a new dial-up ISP. Today, you can NOT move to a new Cable ISP since you are in a Take-It-or-Leave-It situation due to there being only one Cable Company per area. If you are lucky enough to have a AT&T U-whatever-it-is-called or Verizon FIOS option you can switch to them (assuming that they do not try this stunt also) or downgrade to whatever speed of DSL your local Telco offers but that is your only other options except to just drop Internet Access or pay the blackmail fees to your Cable Company. you do not have to go with what your telco offers unless you live ridiculously far from your central office. There are other companies available out there for dsl that offer different types of dsl circuits. I know this for a fact because I used to have an sdsl line for cheap prior to getting cable. Would I drop my cable company if they started to do this? In a heartbeat. Would others also? of course. All it takes is a few people hearing horror stories of $1000 internet overage charge bills and a savy competitor to get people to switch in waves.
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | That ends if AT&T install uverse or you have FIOS. |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| reply to maartena
So you're willing to pay a 800% markup on the actual cost of bandwidth delivery? They're paying 2-5 cents per gigabyte of traffic and in some cases with peering agreements even less than that.
Like others have stated, it would kill any internet based competition and destroy many good paying jobs. People will quit using the internet and many good projects will be destroyed.
Billing by the byte is not the answer. It's greed plain and simple. |
|
Frank
is chilling
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to NOCMan
really? |
said by NOCMan :That ends if AT&T install uverse or you have FIOS. really? It's interesting that you say that considering that the apartment building i'm moving to is already wired for fios and I can get dsl even though i've seen the fios ONT in the apartment with my own eyes....
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida |
|
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to NOCMan
said by NOCMan :So you're willing to pay a 800% markup on the actual cost of bandwidth delivery? They're paying 2-5 cents per gigabyte of traffic and in some cases with peering agreements even less than that. NOCMan, (what an inappropriate name)
You have NO IDEA what you are talking about! Your statements are baseless and uneducated.
Please quote your economic data which shows not only your example around the small cost of a 6 meter fiber interconnect with another carrier (transit/peering), but also the 100's of thousands of miles of fiber, 10's of thousands of routers, transport equipment, CMTSs, frequency allocation, etc, etc, that is needed to upgrade capacity in a massive scale.
Networks are not financially based on per gigabyte used. They are built for peak usage. Please stop quoting the same uneducated errors over and over again. |
|
MisterMarcus
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to RARPSL
Precisely the point. Dialup companies could rape the customer at will because there was true competition. A dialup provider simply needed to provide access numbers to essentially allow your computer the ability to call another computer, creating the "network connection". Dialup ISPs had no hardware installed at the premise, so to speak. All a user had to have was a phone line...which at the time was a monopoly owned by the Bells (and don't get me started on how they raped customers on charges...local toll, pshh)
Now, cable companies hold the monopoly on certain areas of cities. Where I am, I can't choose to go with Cox or Time Warner; it depends on where I live at the time. Rancho Bernardo (most of it) is wired for Time Warner. Escondido (most of it) is wired for Cox. In other words, it depends on where I live, when. Last I heard, Cox was going to absorb the remaining Time Warner areas; I certainly hope not, as I was rather pleased with Time Warner's internet offering.
Basically, if cable cos choose to go with this model, there's nothing you can do except defect to DSL - which is inferior in some areas, especially mine. Not only lower speeds, but the ambiguity of the "loop length to the CO" nonsense, it's a crap shoot whether you'll get service and if you do, whether it'll be decent or not.
No...for consumers like me, if they implement it, we'll have to pay it. There's no other choice. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | reply to NOCMan
Not with Uverse. With Uverse, when you order it, they just plug in a VDSL modem into your line at the neighborhood cross connect box. Your voice service is still comes from either a legacy RT/Pair Gain/DLC or the central office. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to devnuller
Verizon IS PAID when they "get bandwidth", they own UUNET. So they have free bandwidth to the world. They are the highest peered network in the world, and all of it will be free peering or profit peer (someone pays them to get a connection to them, they dont need to pay anyone else). Also having 26 million IPs (on that ASN alone) makes them the 4th largest network of potential customers online (I'm disregarding Bourgeoisie corporations that got /8 blocks pre-IANA and non USA providers). Note ASN numbers are loose indicators of size, a company may 1000s-1,000,000s of unused IPs inside that ASN that dont ever see any use, and a company may have multiple ASNs which I am not looking at.
»fixedorbit.com/stats.htm |
|
