how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
4 edits | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Dogfather:said by pabster:I have no problem with paying according to usage. That's how most everything else is priced, so why not? I expect to pay more if I'm consuming 500GB per month than if I only use 5GB. Problem is they'll charge you $45 even if you used 0 GB in a month. My water company charges a minimum per month whether I use any water or not. Why should ISP's be any different? While it is true that the water company has to maintain infrastructure or "the water pipes" whether one is home or on vacation, using water or not, & an ISP has to maintain cables, wires, routers, switches, etcetera whether the user uses 1 GB or 1000GB, that's where the similarities materially end.
Paying for "internet access" is NOT like paying for "water or electricity". Water and electricity are finite resources, not "access to" other services. We pay for the water and electricity BECAUSE they are finite resources, we also pay an added fee for the infrastructure as part of that bill. With ISPs we are simply paying for the infrastructure or "access to" other services. In this way the internet is not like other "utilities". Of course the ISPs would LIKE to FORCE you to pay for extra "services" from them, but that's not really cool from an ethical standpoint the way things are setup... The internet is also interactive and affected by outside forces beyond the user's control, or at least the control of the average user. They simply don't have the time or expertise to bother dealing with the many "services" that eat away at their bandwidth usage.
Carrying the water analogy further, I pay the ISP for the pipe or access to other services. The ISP shouldn't care if water, tea or beer is coming down that pipe nor where I get it from, who I pay for it, etcetera. Their job is simply to keep the pipe in working order so that it can carry the amount of liquid that we mutually agreed that they would support.
But the ISPs are ticked because the sellers of the water are making more money. They want into the game, and want to get money from both sides... Really they just need to get over it and be the pipe. They are the truck that delivers the furniture, not the furniture sellers.
And as was pointed out earlier in this thread-- we are already metered/capped. I subscribe to a particular speed. Speed * Time = Max bits I can download. Ignore for the moment that we never achieved the max speed that the ISP states that they provide even after overhead is taken into account and the consumer should be upset at the agreement before any talk of metering begins!
Metering, no matter how logical the original reason, will only lead to abuse by the service providers. The consumer is ALREADY being taken for a ride based on agreed speeds that they're not getting... I guarantee that metering will not solve any ISP problems and will happen to start an endless stream of rate hikes until the most basic user will be paying what we all pay right now.
The net grew because of UNLIMITED plans. Speeds increased, the web became more interesting, and delivered better and more varied content. Metering will undo ALL of this because people will STOP using all of these NEW interesting pieces of content.
ISPs shouldn't be using our phone and cable bills as models for Internet billing; other services should be using ISP all-you-can-eat billing as a model for their billing. In fact, cell phones are starting to do this. Check out all the unlimited plans, and the family plans, and the unlimited in network plans.... All-you-can-eat works.
Granted, it doesn't work for all areas of utility service; electricity absolutely should be metered, since every watt consumed has to be generated, and therefore requires outlay on the part of the power company. The Internet doesn't work that way. It costs a whole lot less to administer my account, for one thing; for another, the ISP's costs don't change at all whether I download one byte or 30 GB per month. (Now, if the entire subscriber base pushes bandwidth to the max, it can cause support and reliability issues, and resolving those issue does cost some money--but not nearly enough to nickel and dime us over.)
The only real costs ISPs incur seem to be:
1) Initial infrastructure and upgrades. Unfortunately, I hear conflicting reports over whether we're at our limit or whether there's a glut of unused bandwidth. Consensus seems to be that we desperately need to complete buildouts to rural areas, but the telcos are taking their damn sweet time about it despite collecting $2.95 per person per month for a Universal Service Fee that's supposed to have accomplish just that. Where di that money go? **ahem**
2) Maintenance and administration. This is a legitimate expense, but the cost is not directly proportional to bandwidth use, especially at lower usage levels. Administration never, ever changes, no matter how much or how little bandwidth I use. In fact, if bandwidth were metered, it seems like all someone would have to do to wreck the billing system is start up a whole bunch of unused accounts...but I think that would be illegal and wrong, so don't ever do it.
3) Marketing. Not our problem.
4) Lobbying. Sooooo not our problem.
5) Shareholders. The less-nearsighted of these will eventually realize that if you make a service suck hard enough that nobody wants to use it, the dividend checks will stop flowing.
6) CEOs. Screw the CEOs. Any *** can golf and network his way to an MBA and wear $2000 Brooks Brothers suits. Look at the schmucks who are doing it now.
Metered access will kill things like the very rich text editor used for these comments. Metered access will not improve our quality, speed, or reliability. Japan and Korea charge less per byte and still deliver better bandwidth.
I don't begrudge anyone the right to earn a living. The key word is earn. What has your ISP done for you (or to you) lately?
All-you-can-eat buffets seem to be staying in business despite the occasional gluttonous family. Prices are simply adjusted accordingly. If someone shows up and just has a piece of toast, maybe they're not getting what they pay for, but there's no reason to think that someday they might start eating more. Plus, someone can always open a shop that just sells toast at a reasonable price. Dial-up internet is still an option. However, our oligopoly seems to have an unfair advantage at this point for more competition to popup.
Creating a metered internet is going to destroy a lot of businesses, and shut down a lot of modestly-capitalized companies that made the internet what is! | |
| The biggest problem I have is that the MSO's are constantly painted to be the bad guys. They carry the load that delivers all the traffic and the only thing they can do to improve their infrastructure and business is bill the customers. This ofcourse makes them the bad-guys and the 'content' people the poor guys getting the shaft.
You drive past a construction site and see the dumpster and think I have a couch that I need to get rid of. You ignore the sign that says "no public dumping" and you throw it in the dumpster and move on with your life. Someone else paid for that dumpster and now they have to pay more to empty it because of what you did. The ISP backbones are in the same category (and I don't mean in the trash 
I'll take the example of *some* of these Internet Video stb's in circulation. Several of them use p2p or a variation to distribute their content. These companies exist on a model that says they don't have to pay for bandwidth to deliver their service. Or atleast not nearly as much bandwidth as would be required if they sourced the content 100% themselves. So why can't these large content providers share their profits with the MSO's and help with investing in the infrastructure to provide better services.
Earlier threads reference the satellite VOD systems that use the internet for the content. Great the satellite company gets paid. But when the MSO needs to upgrade the Satellite company doesn't exactly come forward and say "Don't raise the rates.. here is a $10million to invest in your infrastructure".
So the MSO's are faced with three choices Much larger rate increases, traffic management, and nothing.
What's the right answer I have no idea.. I know the existing model is broken.. I think that billing the customers for usage isn't the answer. I think billing the content source is more appropriate than the "customer". Let these internet business truly factor in bandwidth costs in their business model. | |
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| As a customer I expect my rates to climb , and I f I am paying for hi speed net connections , then I am putting into their funds to increase the strength of the network.
Why should the satellite company ? I pay the Cable co anyway.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| reply to NetKrazy
Do what??? You act like the MSO's aren't already billing the customers. They are already bringing in very "healthy" profits, why can't they use those profits to upgrade their infrastructure? Make the service better so that people are willing to pay a little more for it raise rates slightly for the more advanced services that have been added, rince and repeat!
Oh wait, that's because MSO's want people to pay them for NOTHING! They are already price gouging, and now they want even more money for not doing or adding ANYTHING?????
Seems to me that these companies want to change their business structure to be more like a casino, give us your money and hope you get something in return, if not for "F* yourself"...... | |
|
