site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies


BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

reply to anderboy

Re: Metered billing coming - for telcos & cable; reason video

said by anderboy:

I agree.

Metered billing will happen. It is the only fair thing to do, not that the telcos necessarily care about fairness, but I would willingly pay extra for fairness.
There is NOTHING fair abut their plans or ANY ISPs plans for "metered" billing.

You are asusming that the the ISPs will lower the prices for those who currently use less bandwidth and then charge those that use the most more. But that's not their plan. Thier plan is to continue to charge low users the current price and increase prices on everyone else.

anderboy

join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX

I did not assume. I said I would willingly pay extra for fairness. If that means raising the prices on both me AND the torrent freaks, so be it.

Metered billing by definition is fair. You pay for what you use, never mind the ludicrous price per gigabyte.

Imagine a line of people waiting to be processed, each person takes around 5 minutes. Anybody can cut in line and the only thing you can do to prevent being taken advantage of is to cut in line also. Soon there is no queue, but there is a lot of fighting and almost no processing being done.

Now the proprietors of said service implement some authentication/enforcement to prevent/penalize cutters. Such an implementation requires some overhead time and cost in favor of fairness.

I'm the type of person who would willingly wait in line for 2 extra minutes if that somehow guaranteed that some asshat would not be able to cut in line and cost me 5 minutes.



BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

Once again you're drinking the kool-aid that there is some sort of bandwidth apocalypse about to happen. You probably fell for Y2K too.


anderboy

join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX

It's not about an apocalypse. I don't believe that everyone will be starving for internet bandwidth that they can't get.

It's about a scarce resource that needs a protocol to be allocated among many users. The choice of protocol will determine how many people get service, how fair it is, and what quality of service those people will get.

The current allocation (everybody gets as much as they can grab within the limits of the link speed and network congestion) is limited in its ability to provide advanced services in the presence of congestion.

Or do you believe there is never any network congestion? That would be more naive than believing that the Y2K scare had any merit.


fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

reply to BF69

said by BF69:

Once again you're drinking the kool-aid that there is some sort of bandwidth apocalypse about to happen. You probably fell for Y2K too.
He may be drinking Koll-aid, as you say (which, by the way, the cute terms are getting told) but he's very true.

See, you're thinking in "now" terms.. he's thinking in evolution to which I agree.. and it's not kool-aid in the mix here..

You start making a major shift from multi-cast video to more uni-cast and you WILL have a bandwidth problem in a hurry.. The internet is not currently built, in any shape at this time, to handle a flood of people moving to video.

Its much easier to throw up a data center and stream video than it is to rebuilld an entire internet web to handle all these startups... you've already got Netflix and Blockbuster wanting to sell streams.. you've got other companies looking to put devices out to handle video.. it's THIS activity that will put a strain on the internet and at a pace MUCH faster than what providers, both back haul and last mile, can keep up with.

Don't try being cute with the Y2K problem.. you're trying to compare apples to bunny rabbits here.. the network capacity issue is a well known one.. the last mile isn't ready to handle an influx of video.. with the economy the way it is, and people looking for cheaper alternatives, an online video service would be a big draw to those people.. enough that it can and would strain the systems..

What we wind up with next are people like you and the rest of BBR that would come to this very site bitching that their connections are running to a crawl and "why are the ISPs not doing anything about it".. as if they can move fast enough to keep up..

And, you wonder why metered billing would happen.

Personally, they really don't need metered billing.. they could very well, and very easily, up the price to match the user's needs and cap. The operators need to make X amount of money to operate.. they like to see that $99 monthly bill.. so? Sell internet for $99 a month - simple.. however, and again, no one here is going to pay that much for internet.

An internet connection at an average $30 a month is NOT going to get people everything they want.. as the internet evolves, we all know that it ALL has to evolve with it, and the way we pay for it is certainly not exempt from that evolution.. Sorry, but it's not a one sided street here.


El Quintron
... a faint odor of kerosene
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

The Kool-Aid analogy is perfectly valid. While it's true that unicasting will drive usage up exponentially, the powers (TW, Bell in my case) that be are using fear mongering to drive the prices artificially high.

I can assure you that if these carrier get their way the prices aren't going to go down once our bandwith needs are met.

So whether you like it or not, you are drinking exaflood Kool-aid it's just a matter of how diluted that Kool-aid is.
--
They vilify us, the scoundrels do, when there is only this difference, they rob the poor under the cover of law, forsooth, and we plunder the rich under the protection of our own courage.


fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

It's NOT kool-aid, sorry.. what that term drives is the underlying fact that some people just don't get reality therefore they dismiss everything they don't want to hear as BS.

The bottom line is this.. these ISPs, mainly cable and phone, have a core business to operate. If fly-by-night companies come in and start flooding video into the mix, this WILL put a dent in the cable and phone companies bank.. that's obvious... what you guys DON'T get is that when their revenue drops, and it's done so becuase the shift of business is going to the internet, another of their product lines, they will also shift that cost/loss rightfully to the internet.

Internet is largely subsidized by their core products.. for cable it's the video service and for telephone companies it's dial tone. You hurt cable's TV and telephones POTS, they're only going to shift their business model to keep the network propped up.

What you guys ALSO forget is that it's not always about what goes over the line that drives costs more than it is the lines themselves. I don't care if you push video, internet or voice over a line, it still costs about the same amount to operate the delivery system and maintain it.

The companies are going to need a certain amount of revenue to operate.. you lose video customers, then everyone else will pay for it.

Competition is a nice thing.. don't get me wrong.. it's very healthy and part of our economic structure.. but, you can't expect these guys to roll over and play dead either...

Therefore, your assertion that price hikes are artificially high is absolutely wrong.. in the past, operators have waited until it's too late to adjust to shifting markets and the people complain.. now they're trying to get a jump on it and yet the people complain.. so what do we have hear? .. a lesson that people are just going to complain.. so you just move forward and people complain. Simple.

I'd rather them get a jump on it now rather than later; after all, this is what all the consumer groups want.. pro activeness.. well, unless it actually means the customer has to pay their fair share.



El Quintron
... a faint odor of kerosene
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

I hope you've made it a point to send your resume to the Discovery institute while you're at it.

said by fiberguy:

It's NOT kool-aid, sorry.. what that term drives is the underlying fact that some people just don't get reality therefore they dismiss everything they don't want to hear as BS.

The bottom line is this.. these ISPs, mainly cable and phone, have a core business to operate.
A core business that's not up to average citizens to run. Honestly CEOs get how much money you'd think they'd be capable of running a solvent ISP.

I also don't buy the ISP as trickle down benefit of Telephone and TV revenues. If this were the case they wouldn't have been busy snapping up all the dial up and ISDN isps in the mid 90s. I call BS that one too.

said by fiberguy:

If fly-by-night companies come in and start flooding video into the mix, this WILL put a dent in the cable and phone companies bank..
If that's your attitude towards providers of innovative, legitimate businesses who buy their own transit, and conversely that of large Telecom providers with Right of Way guarantees then we are in a lot of trouble.

said by fiberguy:

Therefore, your assertion that price hikes are artificially high is absolutely wrong..
My assertion that it's unfair to expect clients who pay a certain rate, to have that rate hiked up by 300% (at best) in a blatantly anti-competitve move, especially in light of lawsuits to prevent municipalities from building their own, and selectively applying these hikes in areas where they're the only player.

I agree businesses have to make money but you're willfully turning a blind eye to abuse of a dominant position.
--
They vilify us, the scoundrels do, when there is only this difference, they rob the poor under the cover of law, forsooth, and we plunder the rich under the protection of our own courage.

yzor
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Jacksonville, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast

reply to anderboy
I have no problem with a pure metered system. But we never get that system! That is a system with no minimums period.

If I use nothing 1 month I should receive no bill, not even a service charge to the network, otherwise they are just screwing us just like the light/gas/etc companies do with minimum bills, or requiring you to disconnect and then pay to reconnect.


jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA

reply to fiberguy
It looks like a one sided street for many ISPs for me. I currently pay $99 and $20 for internet at two places.
$99 U-verse ( 18/2) $20 Comcast ( 16/1). The U-verse price is outrageous, but I hate TWC, so it is what it is... I won't pay for any price increase over $99 for internet. For that price, I want to be able to use the service how I want. If I want to Netflix 24/7, I should be able to do that. It wasn't that long ago that $99 would pay for phone, internet, and cable TV. The prices for these services are getting out of control too quickly.


jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA

reply to fiberguy
Thank you for something intelligently written to think about.

Remember that the consumer is also being heavily squeezed right now, and that we're being pushed to the limit. The house of cards is coming down on many, and ISP may find that people are willing to do without them in the future. Many have long memories and will not return to these companies when times eventually improve.


Saturday, 02-Jun 09:32:26 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics