Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
2 edits |  Paying for use is fair
 The ISP puppets are on the march. Deborah Taylor Tate, reporter and puppet for the ISPs thinks that caps are fair and that subscribers should pay for use. If you follow her logic Electric Companies should charge $50.00 per month access charge and allow customers 500 Kilowatt Hours a month. According to her it would then be fair to charge $2.00 per Kilowatt Hour for each Kilowatt hour used when their allowance is exceeded. I did not read anywhere in the article that Deborah recommended that the monthly subscription fee should be reduced.
She also has not discussed the fact that the subscriber cannot predict usage generated by system overhead. Until there is a way for subscribers to know the cost in bytes of data, of any action that they or their system takes, per byte billing is deceptive.
Whenever a subscriber accesses a website or the system request permission to download an update, a window should appear advising the subscriber of the amount of data to be downloaded and then wait until the subscriber presses a radio button to start the download. With this system if I access the weasel/prick.com website, a window would come up advising me that first weasel/prick will first download 250Kb of data and then link my browser to the doubleclick website which will then continuously download advertising crap at 6Mb per minute.
Under current conditions if Microsoft downloads a service pack the subscriber may suddenly accrue 234Mb of additional usage, who should pay. Will subscribers try to block critical updates in order to save their valuable download allowance. |
|
Homer J
Mmmm, Free Goo
join:2000-10-05
Springfield
| I normally find the Washington Times to be much fairer than the Washington Post has ever been. This lady is completely off base though. I wonder how much the providers paid her for that glowing review. The poor provider needs to charge grandma 50/mo and the more normal user even more. Charge grandma a lot less and it may seem fairer, not at 50/mo. |
|
El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Acanac
| That's mostly my issue with pay for use, the low users won't be saving any money and the real users are going to have to take out a second mortgage to use the internet.
If anyone thinks Ma and Pa email are going to pay less than 50/mo they must be kidding.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt  : Deborah Taylor Tate, reporter and puppet for the ISPs thinks that caps are fair and that subscribers should pay for use. Maybe people aren't paying attention, but "THE REPORTER" here was an FCC Commissioner until JAN, 2009. So her perspective may have some basis in fact. She isn't just some puppet of the ISPs.
»www.fcc.gov/commissioners/previo···phy.html
Deborah Taylor Tate served as a member of the Federal Communications Commission until January 2009.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
pende_tim
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ
·ProLog
 ·ViaTalk
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Mr Matt
I agree with the Utility company model, but that is nt what TWC tried to do.
With my Power Company I pay for both energy used ( generation cost ) and distribution cost. Both of these costs are regulated by the PUC to allow GPU to cover their actual costs + a 5% profit, or some reasonable profit.
The key here is that these charges are regulated and based on real costs to provide the service. That is not what TWC was trying to do. They were charging a base rate which should have covered their costs and then a consumption rate which was 1000% higher than their actual cost.
If TWC wants to play the consumption based cost model billing game, lets get the PUC involved to establish the true costs and decide a reasonable profit. If TWC agrees to that, then we can talk.
Tim
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. |
|
Homer J
Mmmm, Free Goo
join:2000-10-05
Springfield | reply to TKJunkMail
Her perspective has basis in the facts the providers choose to tell her. That article was very slanted to their favor and was not balanced story, just a puff piece for the providers. |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to pende_tim
 If we want to retain a privately owned broadband network we must go back to the Bell System Cost/Payment Structure. Before the Bell System was destroyed, Independent Telephone Companies received subsidies through Toll Separations. AT&T Long Lines paid all telephone companies including the Local Bell Operating Companies a fee for terminating calls on the local telephone companies network. Sometimes AT&T Long Lines was philanthropically minded in that they would claim that more incoming calls were terminated on an independent telephone companies network than actually were in order to slip the independent extra money if they were having financial difficulties.
In order to supply ISPs funding to expand their networks to carry the added traffic created by companies like Netflix, Netflix should pay the ISPs a reasonable fee for carrying their traffic. I am sure that the company that delivers their movies on physical media does not do it for free. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Mr Matt
what a dumb bitch.
Most broadband consumers would be astounded that some members of Congress want to block our ability to pay for broadband Internet use in precisely the same way we now pay for other commodities: Pay more if you use more; pay less if you use less.
Yeah well unless she can show me where all these companies are going to LOWER the prices for those that use less then she's totally off base. What the ISPs want to to do charge more if you use more and keeping charging what they are now even if you use less. If ISP had to actually charge less for those that used less they would make MUCH less revenue and they know it.
She is either a shill for the ISPs or a complete moron. Possibly both. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron :That's mostly my issue with pay for use, the low users won't be saving any money and the real users are going to have to take out a second mortgage to use the internet. If anyone thinks Ma and Pa email are going to pay less than 50/mo they must be kidding. Exactly. Are ISP are going to charge millions of light user $10 or $20 a month. Their aren't enough heavvy users to compensate for that. |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | You can get 100 mbit connection, TV and phone access for a total of $40 in South Korea. |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| reply to TKJunkMail
Wow. She was part of the FCC? Holy cow.
This is exactly why the FCC has been so horribly screwed up the last 8 years. I can't believe someone like her, a corporate shill, was on the freaking FCC.
God she apparently was nominated by Bush. |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | reply to Mr Matt
Um...Netflix already pays for bandwidth. It's the ISPs' responsibility to use the money they're already paid by their subscribers to expand the networks. God knows they make more than enough profit to do so without double dipping on Netflix. |
|
