dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
31
andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA

2 recommendations

andre2

Member

BS

Usage-based pricing "provides a way for consumers who are not heavy users to keep their costs down" and "increases incentives to invest in broadband networks," Verizon further wrote.
No and no. In fact the second claim is the exact opposite of the truth.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

2 recommendations

AVonGauss

Premium Member

If it were truly usage based billing, then it probably would. Unfortunately, when ISPs say usage based billing they really mean the wireless model of an allotment with (heavy) overage charges.
quisp65
join:2003-05-03
San Diego, CA

1 recommendation

quisp65 to andre2

Member

to andre2
I agree with the providers. Caps should be an option for financing of their networks. We don't need the big hand of government telling how they can charge. If they limited caps, this is an example of the government going too far. Keeping the internet open, SURE,...but lets keep government interference minimal. They have long since messed up our healthcare with people frequently mentioning it's beyond hope of repair. Keep regulation to what is absolutely necessary.
andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA

1 edit

1 recommendation

andre2

Member

Caps are a side effect of little or no competition. There's no actual need for them, except possibly for wireless, since the marginal cost of bandwidth is so low. I agree the government shouldn't directly outlaw caps, but it IS their responsibility to promote competition, and if they actually did that, the caps would mostly disappear. Bandwidth is far more abundant than competition these days, and it's the ISPs who need to stop being pigs, not the customers.

Edit: BTW, the ISPs have no intention of using revenue from caps to invest in their networks. Caps are a disincentive to that, since crappy networks can be used as a justification for caps. Only competition will improve the networks.
quisp65
join:2003-05-03
San Diego, CA

1 recommendation

quisp65

Member

There is no need for anything. How they get their revenue for their network is up to them. It's all just a choice and different styles entertain different groups of consumers. For someone that wants a high performance network, caps would be the most efficient way of charging. For someone that wants cost spread evenly, and wants to use a high amount of the network, then not having caps would be the way to go.
andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA

1 recommendation

andre2

Member

The only reason they don't invest in their network is because there's no reason to (due to lack of competition). Notice how all the ISPs suddenly started coming out with gigabit press releases shortly after Google Fiber, and strangely none of them seem to need caps on this huge bandwidth, in order to provide it? They never did.
quisp65
join:2003-05-03
San Diego, CA

1 recommendation

quisp65

Member

Then work on getting more competition. I get sick of this half a** measure of just doing nothing but more government control. Work at opening up your city or town to more competition. Pardon me I'm almost seeing double.... so I'm annoyingly passionate!

The Limit
Premium Member
join:2007-09-25
Denver, CO

2 recommendations

The Limit

Premium Member

You do realize the barrier to entry in this industry is absurdly high right? Even if you manage to scale the mountain, you'll have to deal with predatory pricing, something that you won't be able to compete against. If you manage to make it this far, and somehow not go bankrupt, then there will be all the legalese that these same providers will push on you, costing you court battles and more money.

Competition is the problem, so how do you propose to fix it?
canestim
join:2012-01-20

4 recommendations

canestim to quisp65

Member

to quisp65
You can't have wires running everywhere and existing utility poles can only hold so many providers. Burying cables is nice but it's expensive and they also have to share the ground with other utilities so you'd just moving one congested area (pole) to another (ground) anyway. That's why you don't have many different electric providers and they are regulated. Build your own municipal broadband? These corps in many states are donating aka encouraging lawmakers to have them banned.

If you don't have competition you have to have regulation, it's that simple. One or two true broadband providers, not capped wireless or slow/latent satellite, is not competition. You make it sound like people in general love regulation and want to be socialist. No, they just don't want to get screwed by corporations who have been allowed unregulated control over an industry. Look at wireless, even four is not enough but it's still better than two. If it weren't for T-Mobile prices and data caps would be ridiculous.

The Internet has changed from a luxury to a necessity in America and needs to be treated as such. If you can't increase competition (legit competition) then you have to regulate. If you can come up with a better solution like The Limit suggested then by all means share it.
gtharby
join:2012-11-19

1 recommendation

gtharby to quisp65

Member

to quisp65
The government wouldn't be telling the providers what they can charge or what product they can sell. The government would only be telling ISPs what they can sell while still calling it broadband (and qualifying for broadband subsidies from the government).