fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to funchords
Re: Well
said by funchords  :said by beaups : "If there is a technical reason for some of these restrictions, then make the technical limit and let __me__ decide how I want to spend it" That would be a CAP and we all know how well received those are. Caps aren't well received, that's true. But ask yourself -- why? Or what can a provider do with a cap that makes it less ugly? 1. They can promise to raise it faster than demand 2. They can exempt certain hours from the cap 3. They can offer a slower, uncapped service 4. They can offer a "re-buy" of more bandwidth Most ISPs are being pretty boneheaded about it. Comcast got heat for their "new" cap only because it surprised people who weren't aware that it had been there for years. I am 100% sorry to disagree with you. Caps are not well received because they are caps, period. For you, the above may be your reason, but it's not for the majority around here that cry daily about them.
While many people here, power users even, state that they never reach anywhere near 250gb, others cry about the highest caps made public to date. (And they still aren't good enough)
People want unlimited access to the internet for the least amount of money, and I can't even add the word 'possible' to that line. Many people here think the internet should be under $20 a month; I disagree. The word value does mean something in this case.
In the early 2000s, many were still on dial-up. That meant 1 computer on 1 slow line ant 1 time. THAT was $20.00. Today, many people have connections 50x faster and have multiple computers hooked up for that same circa $20.00 per month. (oddly, they claim its too expensive and should be cheaper.. I mean, Its ONLY a 1.5 line  )
Comcast, of them all, posted the highest "cap" in the industry and yet people still cry. The reality is that those who are crying have been far exceeding that for a long time and the party is over. Its time to pay if you want to play.
Come up with what ever reason you may want why caps are in place and label that your own reason.. but for gods sake, don't anyone ever put words in my mouth, especially around here, about anything.
Providers CAN in fact do many things - but that's their choice. You can certainly operate your gas station anyway you want - why do you, however, continue to do it the same way as everyone else? Providers, believe it or not, ARE in the business to make money, not break even. Scary fact, but it's NOT always "about the consumer".. it's about survival. In this country, we ALL, including business, have the right to make choices, including going out of business and failing. If they make the right combination of choices, they win.. if they make the wrong ones, they fail. Pure and simple.
Shockingly to some, in the case of Wall-Street, they made the choice to fail.. it's time to let them.. in all cases including broadband, when one fails, another will step in. It's the cycle of life. |
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| VERY well put. If it makes good business sense for somebody to launch a fast, wide open, cap free network...then I'm sure they will. Think of the competetive advantage a mobile operator would have by advertising the only truly unlimited plan? Why isn't it hapening? Probably doesn't make good business sense. I'm also bothered by these consumer "advocate" groups trying to get the government/fcc to get involved. It seems to be the theme over the past few months "dear government, save me , save me". Let the market decide who wins/loses. |
