 | reply to pabster
Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments said by pabster:Bring on the cost. I'll pay my share if you (and everyone else) pays theirs. I'm fine with that. Guess what - 95% of the people aren't fine with that. Only those on the very high end of bandwidth use want everyone's rates raised so they can download more than everyone else. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 1 edit | said by fAcEtIOUs:said by pabster:Bring on the cost. I'll pay my share if you (and everyone else) pays theirs. I'm fine with that. Guess what - 95% of the people aren't fine with that. Only those on the very high end of bandwidth use want everyone's rates raised so they can download more than everyone else. Not here.... I don't use a terribly high amount of bandwidth, but I don't like where this is going. History tends to repeat itself... Metered usage and caps will stifle the internet. |
|
 fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium join:2001-05-25 Limbo | reply to fAcEtIOUs I keep seeing this magical "95%" being thrown around like it will apply until the end of time. It won't and so far as I know it's little more than a number some TWC exec pulled out of his ass to justify their ridiculously low cap testing. As I've said before, in 5-7 years, it won't be 95% based on current traffic stats. Once more consumers get on-board with emerging broadband technologies (VOD, on-line gaming and downloads, Music/video purchases on-line, and any number of things that will show up) that 95% will be more like 80% or perhaps even lower.
Applying 95% as a number representative of any user that's not a pirate (which is simply villifying anyone who would dare use "large amounts of bandwidth" as defined by an ISP) is inaccurate and misleading. Some advanced app non-pirating users make up that 5% and represent what's coming. TWC and others are just making their moves now to pick up another revenue stream before a small minority becomes a much larger more vocal minority which will get in their way toward even more profit.
So, please stop assuming that 5% is all related to pirating or gross misuse of the network. The math for hitting TWC's 40GB highest-tier cap using DTV's VOD isn't hard to do and does not represent unreasonable network use and it certainly won't seem so for future users.
Having said all of that, I also don't believe higher prices are necessarily justified until these ISPs can demonstrate that their infrastructure is becoming saturated and justifies massive investment to fix it. They seem to be forgetting that while investors may give them the bucks to build, it's their customers who give them a reason to build in the first place.
Are other industrialized nations' telecoms having this much trouble with infrastructure? I can't answer that but I'm sure some in the forum can. -- Wishes: When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor. --despair.com |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs I think metered bandwidth will throttle our technological future. I'm also OK with paying for what I use--- **IF** it's what I want to use it on.
I am NOT okay with paying for content I don't want, like ads, spam, portscans, security patches, DRM, Bloatware, and the like. Metering is just a bad idea in general.
Also, the providers **absolutely should not** be able to have their cake and eat it too. Fine, if they want metered bandwidth, so be it, but it better be usage based, not "$49.95 a month PLUS $1.00 per gig over 40"... if you use 4GB a month, your bill should be .... about $1.00 for the month.
Use almost nothing? Pay almost nothing. It's only fair.
(yeah, I know it will never happen...) |
|
|
|
 pspcrazyAnime Freak join:2008-02-06 San Diego, CA 1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs said by fAcEtIOUs:Guess what - 95% of the people aren't fine with that. Only those on the very high end of bandwidth use want everyone's rates raised so they can download more than everyone else. Has anyone noticed from like 1 month ago there's been like 2-3 posters who have just kept saying caps are essential, without caps the internet will die, or caps are awesome? Oddly these posters have began posting like this just recently when the corporations started to think that cap's are needed. It's almost as if they've been planted to shift the way users think about caps (it's not working either). I've never heard these posters ever say anything negative about caps, nor agree with anyone on anything logical behind not capping.
Just something I noticed that I thought was odd. |
|
 james join:2001-02-26 CWCville USA | reply to fAcEtIOUs said by fAcEtIOUs:Guess what - 95% of the people aren't fine with that. Only those on the very high end of bandwidth use want everyone's rates raised so they can download more than everyone else. Guess what - 95% of the statistics in your comment were pulled out of thin air. The cost of bandwidth is a fraction of what they try to bill the end user for overages, it's a blatant money grab on their part. If an idiot like me can see that, why can't you? |
|
 | reply to pspcrazy said by pspcrazy Has anyone noticed from like 1 month ago there's been like 2-3 posters who have just kept saying caps are essential, without caps the internet will die, or caps are awesome? [b :Oddly these posters have began posting like this just recently [/b] Do a search on my ID and you will see I have been posting caps and bill-by-byte for over a year now. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 MysticGogetaThe Robot DevilPremium join:2005-03-14 League City, TX | I don't fully agree with caps the idea makes sense but the problem would be the future development of infrastructure. Once there able to meet the demands the execs and CEO's are going to sit back and rake in the money and laugh in disbelief, that this plan actually went through. What I find interesting is company's that are going through with caps or in testing (Such as TWC) It will probally weed out the bandwidth hogs and they will flock to another provider. Just think for a moment do you think the savings on their end will be passed onto you as a lower rate? They will take our money and come up with another way of charging more , such as making you pay for access to certain websites (Youtube,Google, etc) Don't you remember there was a few providers a while back trying to get them to pay them. What do you think they are working on now? -- Team Discovery-Join the fight |
|