Frank
is chilling
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to bent
Re: Good.
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. |
|
Frank
is chilling
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere
·Verizon FIOS
| 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. |
|
Frank
is chilling
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere
·Verizon FIOS
| 
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 |
|
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| 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. |
|
