 DHRacerFire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
 ·Charter
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Metered billing = no more ads It's simple. If I pay for every byte that crosses my modem, then I should not have to pay for ad-bandwidth on webpages. Those ads are there to help defray the costs of that webpage, sure, but if I'm paying per-byte then all of a sudden I'm costing myself more money to access a site that is typically free (if ad-driven). That would result in internet surfers migrating away from heavy ad-driven sites because of the per-byte charges and suddenly ad-driven websites disappear. With the disappearance of ad-driven websites you'll wind up with websites that wind up charging subscriptions to pay their costs.
Next thing you know, the entire internet is no longer free after you pay your initial ISP charges for access to it.
I just see this cascading into a major change. And not a good one.
| |
|
  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | Re: Metered billing = no more ads Good point. | |
|
 |  RolteC0h
join:2001-05-20
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Metered billing = no more ads Every GB of broadband is no more then $0.05
Its getting cheaper every few months.
They are making TONS OF PROFIT ALL OF THEM.
WHt the F***k would they need to impliment metered billing for?
To show the next quarter a 300% jump in more profit, and help out richer people?
Screw them. Its war at that point. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Not only will people avoid the sites they will install more aggressive adblocking software in the browsers. Firefox has stuff like adblock and that will become way more popular if we pay by the byte. There's also flashblock, which also helps block ads. | |
|
| | said by DHRacer:It's simple. If I pay for every byte that crosses my modem, then I should not have to pay for ad-bandwidth on webpages. I agree, and I see the thinking with this if content heavy sites "cost" you more to visit them. Like saying, "Am I going to eat at "You Tube" or "Hulu"? No, I can't afford that, I'll eat at Google with a Lynx text only web browser behind a ad-blocking proxy...  " It might put a damper on watching naughty stuff, which might peeve a lot of unpeeved pervs. Or not.
(I know that's exaggerating a bit...) | |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by DHRacer:It's simple. If I pay for every byte that crosses my modem, then I should not have to pay for ad-bandwidth on webpages. Those ads are there to help defray the costs of that webpage, sure, but if I'm paying per-byte then all of a sudden I'm costing myself more money to access a site that is typically free (if ad-driven). That would result in internet surfers migrating away from heavy ad-driven sites because of the per-byte charges and suddenly ad-driven websites disappear. With the disappearance of ad-driven websites you'll wind up with websites that wind up charging subscriptions to pay their costs. Run your own tallies on ad traffic utilization and I think you'll disprove your own point. For the vast majority of Internet users advertising bandwidth is practically a rounding error when the unit of measurement is technically per-gigabyte. | |
|
|
|
|
No need to reinvent the wheel. We already have a system in place that sets a precedent. Toll free telephone numbers. Let the transport cost for the data packets downloaded to a customers browser from an advertisers website be paid for by the advertiser. Mark the IP addresses of advertisers servers so that downloaded advertising packets from those servers to a customers browser are not charged to the customers monthly allocation and are charged to the advertiser account.