| They better not or else They better not or else people might get angrier than they are now. |
|
| Time to regulate as a utility..... Make the carriers prove the necessity of such a billing model before a form of a PUC. Count the cap as a form of money to be regulated too. Have the carriers bring their claims of the necessity of implementing restrictions of use (caps) and overage charges before an impartial body (if you could find one), so these claims could be fiscally and technically scrutinized. Results could be then made public, and we could then decide what would be an adequate profit to maintenance ratio (point of contention, I know).
These companies left on their own will not have consumer interests in mind....they are simply following in the footsteps of the financial institutions that have trashed our economy with the attitude of anything goes with regards to gouging!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
| reply to zoom314
Re: They better not or else said by zoom314:They better not or else people might get angrier than they are now. Most people won't even notice. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Hargray Cable
| reply to S_engineer
Re: Time to regulate as a utility..... I don't file trade or anything like that and my bandwidth use just keeps going up. I could see putting a reasonably high cap on a person but they're just trying to make a killing on everyone in the next few years. I know I started using netflix to watch movies on my computer and I doubled or tripled my usage in a month.
Once caps go in they will never go up but people will use more and more bandwidth as new better working products come on line so screw'em. |
|
| reply to fifty nine
Re: They better not or else If most people wouldn't notice, then how would they make any money from the metered billing? They want metered billing to impact the most people. That's the point of it all. |
|
 danawhitakerSpace...The Final FrontierPremium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA | reply to Corehhi
Re: Time to regulate as a utility..... "I don't file trade or anything like that and my bandwidth use just keeps going up. I could see putting a reasonably high cap on a person..."
You just hit on another point there - on a person. Not a household. Some households have just one computer and one user, some have three computers and five users, or six computers and six users. What's a reasonable cap for a single person is an unreasonable cap for a family of four or five, even just doing normal activities.
--
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around... |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | So should that family of four or five be charged more money per month than the sole person in a household? |
|
| reply to nrocme
Re: They better not or else Who ever said that the object of metered billing was to make money from overages?
Metered billing is to protect the video revenue. If you discourage people from Hulu an BitTorrent they will have no choice but to eat the fruit from the walled garden. |
|
Sileet
join:2003-02-15
Merced, CA | I would say one of the points is to make money. They probably loose money on customers who download outrageous amounts |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
·Optimum Online
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:Who ever said that the object of metered billing was to make money from overages? Metered billing is to protect the video revenue. If you discourage people from Hulu an BitTorrent they will have no choice but to eat the fruit from the walled garden. Exactly |
|
| reply to openbox9
Re: Time to regulate as a utility..... said by openbox9:So should that family of four or five be charged more money per month than the sole person in a household? Well what if the one person household is a person thats downloading 24/7?
These are hypotheticals that in my opinion are irrelevant. The carriers business model of averaging usage has been more than profitable for them. Now their holding a knife to the throat demanding even more profit at a time when they're showing no capitol improvements towards the network infrastructure.
This by no means is the case with all carriers, however the precedent once set, will be reigning practice among all providers.
The worst part about this is the futile attempt to educate our legislators about these issues. I guess Cash is King still holds true!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by S_engineer:These are hypotheticals that in my opinion are irrelevant. Agreed. My response was to danawhitaker  's allusion that households should be treated differently based on number of inhabitants which is not what we want carriers doing IMO.said by S_engineer:demanding even more profit at a time when they're showing no capitol improvements towards the network infrastructure How can you make that assertion? Carriers are investing in their infrastructure and increasing income can only increase the possibility of additional CAPEX.said by S_engineer:I guess Cash is King still holds true! Of course it is and to believe otherwise is foolish. |
|
danawhitakerSpace...The Final FrontierPremium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA | I'm not saying that each household should be treated differently - I'm pointing out that for a product that everyone in a household uses, the amount of bandwidth should be large enough to *compensate* for that - for all tiers. It shouldn't be based on the concept that there's only one user in a household using one computer. It needs to be balanced somehow. I get frustrated when I see people talking about average usage and it's just an average per person usage - not an average *household* usage. Companies can't market high speed internet to *families* and then give them usage that's only equivalent to what the average "person" uses in a given week. And if you look at the commercials for a lot of these companies, they're all about how the *family* can use high speed internet. Kids downloading music and playing games and dad browsing his websites. As much as I hate Comcast, they're the only ones who've gotten even remotely close to a reasonable cap of all the ISPs I've seen doing capping in the U.S. and Canada.
Time Warner's 5-40 gig tiers aren't viable for a family. Period. Not even a family of non-piraters. There are too many legitimate and legal uses for bandwidth. They need to reanalyze just what the average amount of bandwidth *households* consume every month rather than the average amount a single person does.
--
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around... |
|
Mark F
join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN | reply to zoom314
Re: They better not or else And, those of us around here are plenty angry at Verizon as it is.
No wonder they are against using their Media Manager software with Netflix, to stream video to their DVR for TV viewing. They want to control what internet video content can be downloaded and watched on a FIOS-connected TV. And, who can watch it.
And, if you use other methods to watch internet video, that where caps and metered billing might come in.
Mark F. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to danawhitaker
Re: Time to regulate as a utility..... The ISPs know exactly how much the average household consumes each month. They have no real means of determining usage per individual in a household. There appears to be a semantics issue here. Given your more defined viewpoint, I equate individual to household and vice verse for usage statistics and rhetoric regarding capping/metering. |
|
| reply to zoom314
Re: They better not or else If they do I will definately cancel my service, screw that. As much as they have been ripping consumers off that would be the last straw for me. Will just get an HD antenna and watch free tv or watch HULU which is currently free. |
|
