dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
932
share rss forum feed

tman852

join:2010-07-06
kudos:1

1 recommendation

typo

"is particular y absurd" 4th para, 1st sentence. Just saying.

Anyways, if the internet moved to this pricing scheme, I see ultimate failure. There's a lot of people out there unlike us who just hop on every so often to watch some youtube or what not on low speed cheap DSL. They see this lame scheme now added to their billing? Gonners. Something like this seems like it would only stick on the people who like paying an ass load of money for few services, aka ridiculous cell phone plans for example...just my opinion.
--
Core i7 920 @ 3.2ghz | OCZ Obsidian 6GB 1600mhz DDR3 RAM | EVGA X58 tri SLI-LE mobo | 2X EVGA 1GB GTX460 Video Cards | Antec 750w PSU | WD Black 1TB HDD | Antec 1200 Case | G15 keyboard | G9x mouse | G35 Headset | Asus 23" LED-LCD Monitor

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

said by tman852:

Anyways, if the internet moved to this pricing scheme, I see ultimate failure.

The whole problem is lack of competition. If an ISP charged more for richer, bloated content I might go with them because I'm not into that. But, the problem is, there is no competing ISP who could compete on a different business model (for my business, and the hogs').

I think ISPs do face a legitimate problem when Google (et. al.) expand content, which consumes bandwidth, even for people who don't want it. A good example is Google's rather indiscriminate and choiceless "instant preview" feature. It's easy to crank out bloat when you don't have to pay for the recipient's increased bandwidth requirements.

But, unlike the polarized mindsets cultivated (and I use the term literally) on this site, I also see the other side of the problem. I don't trust monopolies to charge extra to solve that problem. It doesn't address the real problem: monopolies.


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
you need to define competition. 3 companies in the same area with the same tiers, same price, and same abuses are hardly what should be defined as competition, it's more like collusion. Which lends to your monopoly theory. However, have you seen anything from either the ISP industry, or the people that supposedly regulate it, to give you hope about a future where the consumer is not being gouged, tracked, and sold out by their elected "leaders" in this regard?
There is a reason for the polarization.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to amigo_boy
Why are you so fanatically stubborn and utterly opposed to acknowledging facts presented to you by people who actually understand the industry?

There are no "hogs". Bandwidth is dirt cheap. It costs them 3-4 CENTS/GB.

Google happens to both send and receive a lot of bandwidth, so it manages to accrue huge peering agreements.

You don't understand the internet's network infrastructure. The largest ISPs pay so very, very little for bandwidth. They own EVERYTHING- middle mile, last mile, etc.

Google doesn't bog down the internet. Without google, there would other search engines. And without search engines, there would be no internet.

Both on a technical level and a philisophical level, your argument is meaningless. I don't understand what is stumping you.


WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by sonicmerlin:

There are no "hogs". Bandwidth is dirt cheap. It costs them 3-4 CENTS/GB.

They own EVERYTHING- middle mile, last mile, etc.

Yes, upstream bandwidth *is* dirt cheap. I pay about $30 per TB (1,000 GB), and I charge about $30 per GB to the end-user. That's a ten times mark up. What to I do with that "profit"? To build out the "last mile" that the telco and cable providers won't touch.

The "largest ISPs" do not own everything, only what is the most profitable for them.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:

you need to define competition. 3 companies in the same area with the same tiers, same price, and same abuses are hardly what should be defined as competition, it's more like collusion.

Not necessarily.. this is also a bi-product of competition and open market too. This is just like the corner gas-stations. When one raises it's price, the others generally will do the same, on their own, because they figure if one does, they all can. If one drops, they rest follow. Just as the people of this country are sheeple, so are many businesses.

To have collusion, they have to be in talks and make agreements - this isn't always the case. They just happen to play monkey-see, money-do with each other.

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

1 recommendation

reply to sonicmerlin
The issue is that its not always about making money on the internet product, rather, it's about protecting their OTHER revenue sources as well such as video and voice. The internet allows everyone else out there to degrade their core business. The internet ultimately SHOULD drop in price, but when you drop the price of the very product killer to their other sources, what do you have left of a company? ... not much. (ie: if the internet has to drop in price, and that internet delivers competing phone and video services, it kills the very life blood of not only the ISP/Cable-Phone company, but the internet service as well.. and for what? .. so some fly-by-night "Vonage" service can come in, do it on the cheap, and have nothing really to lose if they decide to pull out and leave an entire customer base with no services??)

Think about it. Not everything can be placed on the back of a dumb-pipe and expect to survive in this country.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:

There are no "hogs". Bandwidth is dirt cheap. It costs them 3-4 CENTS/GB.

I use 4-5 gb per month. ISP's should only charge me 12 to 20 cents per month?

said by sonicmerlin:

Why are you so fanatically stubborn...

Perhaps I'm not the fanatic.