 Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
1 edit | reply to Mactron
Re: Fiasco said by Mactron:said by Matt3:... why should someone at the other end who also does have to pay a 3rd time? Cellphone billing model ?..  If you think about it, this is a step BEYOND even draconian cell phone billing. With a cellphone (just like data transfer) both parties pay for the call (or a fixed amount of data transfer, or per byte, or even via a mutually beneficial peering arrangement) but there is no 3rd charge because you talk to Cousin Joe a lot unless you have an overage.
These companies want to institute an additional charge because the majority of their customers want to view a certain website service. It makes no sense. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | what ironic is if it wasn't for all those sites with all that content I wouldn't have a need to have a 20 Mbps connection. If all I'm expected to do is check e-mail, sports scores, weather, do online banking and bill pay and that kind of stuff, well I'd just drop down to 756 kbps DSL for $20 a month. |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | said by BF69:what ironic is if it wasn't for all those sites with all that content I wouldn't have a need to have a 20 Mbps connection. If all I'm expected to do is check e-mail, sports scores, weather, do online banking and bill pay and that kind of stuff, well I'd just drop down to 756 kbps DSL for $20 a month. Exactly. It's such a double standard. First they want you to upgrade to the highest speed (and $$$) possible so you can view all those video sites - then they want to gouge some more profits from someone else because you actually USE your connection? I don't think so.
If it wasn't for content providers there wouldn't be a need for broadband to begin with and they wouldn't even have a fraction of the users they have now. This I-want-to-have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too from ISPs is absolutely disgusting. They suck. |
|
