should be no difference in residential and business services
in this day and age of home start ups and small home offices there should be absolutely no differentiation between business and residential services. ISPs should offer different size packages with various speeds, data quota, etc. i should be able to signup for any package regardless if i am an individual at home, a small business owner or a large corporation. i pay appropriate for what i order. arbitrage from these connection should be completely fair game. if i wish to rent a house in kansas city with google fiber to run a seedbox business on a bunch of servers than google should have already though about that impact before they launched.
What you seem to be suggesting with your desire for "different size packages with various speeds, data quota, etc." is METERED residentual broadband, which many on this site (myself included) absolutely despise. I still have my grandfathered Verizon unlimited data plan as a result. My ISP (Qwest, now Centurylink) has recently reduced my monthly limit from 500g to 250g, and if I could do anything about it, I would (except I am in a rural area, and they are the only real provider here). Advocating for anything that leads to metered residential broadband is a HUGE mistake (IMHO).
Edited to indicate residential
|reply to anonphoneuse | said by anonphoneuse :
in this day and age of home start ups and small home offices ...
Would make sense in a virtual world where we all lived in the same virtual data center with exactly the same cost per bit.
In the real world, where the cost per bit and delivery to each locale is different, it really doesn't work at all.
If your last mile is particularly long and expensive to serve, you can't expect the person in an office right off the backbone to subsidize your location, just as you don't choose to subsidize his (likely) more expensive office space.
said by tshirt: said by anonphoneuse :
If your last mile is particularly long and expensive to serve, you can't expect the person in an office right of the backbone to subsidize location, just as you don't choose to subsidize his (likely) more expensive office space.
Not continuously, no. But we did this with the electric grid and the phone grid. Why the hell can't we do this with the data grid? Serious question.--
A sane approach to our federal budget: Ignore the tea party
[BQUOTE=ArrayList But we did this with the electric grid and the phone grid. Why the hell can't we do this with the data grid? Serious question.
The other side is we try and let private industry develop such systems with gov't ONLY stepping in when industry fails, which contrary to what some here would have you believe not only has not happened, if we look we can see industry rapidly filling the demand with cable HFCoax and Telco HFcopper and some pure fiber buildouts continuously serving more customers faster everyday.
No it isn't INSTANT ,but the feds could throw billion$ at it and it wouldn't be done much faster.
Think how quickly data networks change, India just shutdown their first low rate network -The telegraph( a few bits a second) a couple weeks ago, not because it wasn't still used, but could no longer compete with wireless phone and computer networks (MBps and beyond).
It's a choice, obviously we have the technology, and potentially could redirect the money to that from some other use.
but since we can't currently house or feed or educate or protect all the people we have, and we can't even decide how to regulate the number of new arrivals and the entire house of representatives couldn't currently manage to light a fire if you gave them a box of matches (please don't, for them we have fully paid health and life insurance
and some sort of expensive accident seems likely) it is impossible to move forward with that.
|reply to anonphoneuse |
for home-starts up there is a package called Teleworker on most providers. It allows servers and static IPs. Google just doesn't wish to provide services to any 'business" customers. that is why they do NOT deploy in those areas.