| Remember the 90s Your internet access was billed by the hour.
When broadband came about, it was "unlimited" by default.
I do believe that they either didn't think people would use "all you can eat" bandwidth or they just couldn't meter cost effectively.
Well, now both of those things have come to pass so now they have every reason to cap and charge overages. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by fifty nine:... Well, now both of those things have come to pass so now they have every reason to cap and charge overages. actually, the only reason they have to cap and charge overages is to suck more money out of their captive customers and not have to adequately upgrade their infrastructure
they WANT to do this and don't need a reason. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:Your internet access was billed by the hour. And then AOL offered unlimited service at a standard rate of $19.99. And despite a long and frustrating period for many customers fighting to get through on one of AOL's phone numbers, their user base grew astronomically. They soon dominated the industry.
If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first.
|
|
Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first. That remains the problem for marketers of this idea. Like the "three strikes" idea, unless you get every carrier to engage in this en masse, then you're simply offering other carriers a way to differentiate themselves competitively.
Were Time Warner Cable a little smarter, they'd just impose high caps like Comcast, Charter, and Cox plan to do, then slowly ease them downward and impose overages in a few years very quietly while American consumers are busy guzzling corn syrup and watching Dancing With The Stars.
That's my suggestion, for what it's worth. |
|
| reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first. There is the issue. While those few living in large cities where there is a bit more local competition won't be much affected by it cause at least one (if not more) smaller providers will offer unlimited as usual and customers will reap the benefits. For those of use in suburban or rural areas (a majority of the US) where there is only one or two providers... well, we will not have any choice. For many it's either capped provider A or dial-up provider B. For a few more it will be capped provider A, capped provider B, or dial-up C.
Consumers will definitely suffer if the major providers decide to go with this.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
| For me it's either:
30M/2M and 100GB cap each way. Service Electric/PTD cable.
or
5M/896k and no caps, plus having to subscribe to landline phone service (which I currently don't do). This is Embarq DSL. I'm too far from the CO to get 10M service, plus that 896k upload is just pathetic.
or
3.5M/1M and unknown caps, varying with weather. This is Near You Networks WISP.
I want the speed so I guess I have to swallow the caps for now. |
|
 davoice
join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC | FYI... Embarq offers standalone DSL service. I have it at my other house. No phone line required. You just have to call and ask for it. (And find someone who understands what you're asking for.)
}Davoice |
|
 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to Karl Bode
OMG karl, don't give them any ideas 
--
BlooMe |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA | reply to nasadude
Yeah, that's why the power company does it....wait...
--
Come let us reason together. |
|
1 edit | reply to davoice
Yeah but the main problem for me is the speed.
5m down just won't do for reliable netflix streaming. |
|
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:said by fifty nine:Your internet access was billed by the hour. And then AOL offered unlimited service at a standard rate of $19.99. And despite a long and frustrating period for many customers fighting to get through on one of AOL's phone numbers, their user base grew astronomically. They soon dominated the industry. If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first. That'd be nice but unfortunately we usually don't have a choice because the entire US Big Cable Business solely exist due to MONOPOLIES - which, as always, we deny...
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] |
|
| reply to davoice
I think Covad does the same....it's a bit pricey being only Business class service ($70 for 1.5Mbps down) but I'll take slow and steady over fast(er) and capped any time. |
|
 Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:22 | reply to jmn1207
Heh, I remembered that. Some nights back when I used to use AOL I could never get a connection for hours on any of my numbers, they'd all come up busy. That was until High Speed Internet became cheaper and AOL bought more numbers. |
|
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:Your internet access was billed by the hour. No, I don't remember that. I remember paying $20 for unlimited dialup access within months of the time dialup ISPs started operations in town. I've never paid by the hour or by amount transferred. |
|
| reply to kamm
said by kamm: That'd be nice but unfortunately we usually don't have a choice because the entire US Big Cable Business solely exist due to MONOPOLIES - which, as always, we deny... Unfortunately true. 
It's not like the dialup days of the 90s where there were dozens of providers to choose from. After a couple of months of running up bills of $100 or more, I found a flat-rate provider, which wasn't very common at the time. But it caught on, and eventually all of them went-flat rate.
If there were only one or two providers to choose from back then, I doubt it would have ever gone flat-rate. And now it looks like we're taking a huge step backwards. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:That remains the problem for marketers of this idea. Like the "three strikes" idea, unless you get every carrier to engage in this en masse, then you're simply offering other carriers a way to differentiate themselves competitively. Except the marketers have the advantage of "marketing" with monopolistic powers.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to dentman42
said by dentman42:said by fifty nine:Your internet access was billed by the hour. No, I don't remember that. I remember paying $20 for unlimited dialup access within months of the time dialup ISPs started operations in town. I've never paid by the hour or by amount transferred. Thank you for making that correction.
Netcom did go "all-you-can-eat" eventually. Internet access went from metered to unmetered.
Going from unmetered to metered is simply backwards.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... |
|
 sivranOpera convertPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | reply to fifty nine
quote:
5M/896k and no caps, plus having to subscribe to landline phone service (which I currently don't do). This is Embarq DSL. I'm too far from the CO to get 10M service, plus that 896k upload is just pathetic.
Pathetic is relative. I'd gladly take 5M/896k over the 7M/~400k I get from TWC right now. Yeah, I'd trade 2 megabits down for ~500k up. In a heartbeat. 
I'm in an AT&T area myself, but Verizon and FIOS aren't that far away, and even my crappy neighborhood has U-Verse. I kinda doubt I'll see metered billing here, but if I do, and especially with the low caps TWC has, I'll be boarding a shuttle for the Death Star for sure.
--
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon profitable cause... |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
 ·MSN
1 edit | reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:said by fifty nine:Your internet access was billed by the hour. And then AOL offered unlimited service at a standard rate of $19.99. And despite a long and frustrating period for many customers fighting to get through on one of AOL's phone numbers, their user base grew astronomically. They soon dominated the industry. If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first. The flaw with your arguement is that back them, EVERYONE was on equal footing. Every dial up ISP had equal access to the POTS network. Today, only the chosen few have access to the BROADBAND networks.
All it takes is for Time Warner to do this in LA, and AT&T to follow, and I will have no choice whatsoever for unlimited broadband. See the FCC considered TWO to be competition, so that's what we have. |
|
| reply to sivran
said by sivran: quote:
5M/896k and no caps, plus having to subscribe to landline phone service (which I currently don't do). This is Embarq DSL. I'm too far from the CO to get 10M service, plus that 896k upload is just pathetic.
Pathetic is relative. I'd gladly take 5M/896k over the 7M/~400k I get from TWC right now. Yeah, I'd trade 2 megabits down for ~500k up. In a heartbeat. I'm in an AT&T area myself, but Verizon and FIOS aren't that far away, and even my crappy neighborhood has U-Verse. I kinda doubt I'll see metered billing here, but if I do, and especially with the low caps TWC has, I'll be boarding a shuttle for the Death Star for sure. You are aware that AT&T is also experimenting with some similarly low caps (40GB) in TWO markets right now, yes? |
|
