Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
uniqs
19
share rss forum feed


Roger Wilco

@wavecable.com
reply to elray

Re: Why not?

So in your alternate universe, the [content] providers "buy out" our caps on their own dime? Isn't it conceivable to you that they might in turn have to recover these costs from us? What I'd be afraid of is having to pay for my bandwidth twice.


Precisely

@speakeasy.net
Roger Wilco - Yes. The same way that local merchants recover the costs of advertising in the yellow pages (plus the profit of yellow pages) via the rates they charge for their services.

Or you pay for "free shipping" via the cost of the item.

FedEx charges you to ship both ways. Zappos just covers it for you when you buy their shoes by their price. (Zappos does NOT have a low price guarantee, nor Amazon.)

It's amazing that a consumer PAYS to be able to access iTunes over the air. If a business relies 100% on another business, everywhere else in the world that business charges them. You currently pay Netflix for access AND pay for delivery.

I take the long view. 1. There is more access to spectrum and airwaves than getting onto Cable. 2. If data usage was based on the ability to charge companies to access the user base, companies would try their damndest to ensure uptime and cover more people. 3. All this FCC bullcrap about subsidizing rural people would go away as the carriers with the most coverage would be the most attractive. 4. Low cost provides like MetroPCS would work on lowering the data plans. 5. Incentives would be properly aligned.

Imagine a Yellow Book you had to PAY to receive versus a free one. What would you choose? Now imagine a Yellow Book you had to pay to receive that had EVERYTHING in it, or a Yellow Book you got free that had fewer companies (but all the people) but was free and let you call out to anyone?

Basically the government should stay out of this. 100 other industries operate this way (shopping malls with pay parking, shopping malls with free parking, Google's bid-more-for-premium-placement, Free Shipping, 1-800 numbers, etc).

Just imagine a world where you got data for free and had no carrier lock in or ETF. Imagine how badly carriers would compete on customer service and coverage and call quality. If a carrier tried to blacklist various sites for not paying, consumers would switch to a carrier that did.

This is a step in that direction. Getting companies to pay for data is the first step. AT&T is tightening its own noose and doesn't know it, because they will allow competitors to go for the jugular with free data (but limited services).

I agree though - Cable companies are the worst. But that's because they have local MONOPOLIES. Carriers have competitors everywhere.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to Roger Wilco
said by Roger Wilco :

So in your alternate universe, the [content] providers "buy out" our caps on their own dime? Isn't it conceivable to you that they might in turn have to recover these costs from us? What I'd be afraid of is having to pay for my bandwidth twice.

Of course they're recovering it from us.

But I'd rather see Netflix charge me an extra $5 on my subscription, to guarantee performance via my local ISP, than have my local ISP told by the FCC to provide "neutral" connections, which will perform equally poorly for all concerned.

Why should YOU pay extra for MY bandwidth?


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
said by elray:

Of course they're recovering it from us.

But I'd rather see Netflix charge me an extra $5 on my subscription, to guarantee performance via my local ISP, than have my local ISP told by the FCC to provide "neutral" connections, which will perform equally poorly for all concerned.

Why should YOU pay extra for MY bandwidth?

Heh.. You're freakin' clueless, aren't ya?
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.3G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,1G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital QP DE504,Compaq DP NC3131,2xSun QP GigaSwift, SMC 8432BTA, Gentoo]

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by Simba7:

said by elray:

Of course they're recovering it from us.

But I'd rather see Netflix charge me an extra $5 on my subscription, to guarantee performance via my local ISP, than have my local ISP told by the FCC to provide "neutral" connections, which will perform equally poorly for all concerned.

Why should YOU pay extra for MY bandwidth?

Heh.. You're freakin' clueless, aren't ya?

Sorry to disappoint. I'm not a socialist.

Some of us prefer to pay our own way, for quality service, rather than succumb to the vast, inefficient, overpriced wasteland that is The Commons.