S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
 ·Comcast
| 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
 ·AT&T Southeast
| 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. |
|
danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA
·MSN
·Mediacom
| 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... |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| 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. |
|
