kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Pay per bit solves all
said by TKJunkMail  :The solution that should be implemented to address all bandwidth hog issues - a pay per bit pricing model. With that model, those who consume the most bandwidth pay the most money. This does 2 things: It puts the burden of upgrading infrastructure on those causing the need for an upgrade. And it puts a self-limit on those biggest bandwidth hogs - how much are they willing to pay to consume huge amounts of bandwidth. At some point they will cut their usage to match their available funds. Uh, not again... you and your corporate shill PR points... no, we are not going to give you, cable shills the option to charge EVEN MORE when you cannot deliver anything better than the 14-15th place on the world list - we are already paying more than the top3. |
|
bob2-00
@swbell.net
| reply to Ebolla
Re: Silliness.
In 2005 Abilene TX went through the whole "we are a local station and we want money from COX cable" disaster. Our NBC station wanted money from the cable company and until they got it their station was not on cable. They finally after months of propaganda from both sides are back on the cable system.
»www.broadcastingcable.com/articl···Features |
|
Myhrddin
join:2003-12-12
Beaumont, TX
| reply to tsu9
I guess that a lot will be going on from now until it all turns to fiber. I'm talking about "the last mile" fiber, not what's in place already.
It makes sense that they're gonna try to get you and lock you in on a service now, pre-fiber while they can still make claims about the delivery technology. Soon it won't matter whether it's phone, net, tv, radio or whatever.. you'll have wireless and fiber.
At that point it will really become about the value and the overall combination of data-types provided I think.
With the advent of inter-system laser data paths and fiber right up to your door, the focus won't be on bandwidth anymore but on what you get for your dollar, yen or euro. At least in a really ghestalt way.. forgive the spelling. |
|
Myhrddin
join:2003-12-12
Beaumont, TX
1 edit | reply to rachelsfx
You realise that Google already makes income and that they have even stated in relation to their video that they've been working to provide free content.
Its fine if they wish to provide an additional, no-ad service but, let's not hop on a bandwagon to begin paying for service with commercials. Especially since the commercials are there to pay for the programming in addition to generating their own revenues.
and ..pipes.. If they wanna sell water to you, they get to pipe it to your home. If they wanna sell internet to you guess what.. yep, they get to pipe that to you too.! It seems like it'd be an extra fee to pay additional for internet on top of already paying for internet.
dee dee dee |
|
Same as Yesterday
@rr.com
| reply to tsu9
One way of addressing the interesting policies of the those in CEO and other high paying positions is to pass a law that the highest paid person in the company can make no more than 20 times what the lowest paid person working for the company is compensated. This would include consultants, temps and those mowing the grass. Pay is defined as total compensation.
Another way of improving the country is to force any politician who received money from a company that found itself in a ENRON position to pay back the amount plus interest at credit card rates. |
|
Myhrddin
join:2003-12-12
Beaumont, TX
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Pay per bit solves all
Pay per bit.. Are you Bill Gates.?
This mess needs to be stopped before they're deciding what websites you can have and on what tier of service. I'm sorry, that site isn't available with standard expanded internet.
Would you like to Biggie Size that.? |
|
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | reply to Not You
Re: Silliness.
they are required to carry the channels, and yes the channels can charge the cable provider |
|
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
| reply to tsu9
Honestly, I'd happily pay for GMAIL. I won't pay for Google. Maybe Google should start charging ISPs since Google is a popular site as well as MySpace, YouTube, etc.
"Our customers can't access Google even from our website powered by Google. They are ticked!"
"When you wanted $$$ from us, we blocked ALL AT&T customers including your employees."
"What?"
"If you want Google back, we want royalties!"
"Yer kidding! It's our pipes!"
"Pretty useless pipes when people can't get anywhere." |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Pay per bit solves all
Honestly TK, if "bandwitch hogs" are draining that much money, the ISPs are doing something seriously, grossly, negligent. |
|
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
1 edit | reply to clickie
Re: Silliness.
said by clickie :You are wrong. Local stations are carried free under must-carry rules. Local stations can elect must-carry or can demand payment from cable companies (aka retransmission consent.) In general, most major network affiliates take the latter option but some take the former; PBS stations and religious stations are always must-carry. See »www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend |
|
sjr
join:2006-08-27
Osseo, MN
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Pay per bit solves all
That sounds exactly like traditional landline pricing for long distance service of old. But cell phones and now voip are largely killing off that pricing model. Why would one go back to it for something else?
If one was to price that way are the isp's going to guarantee that you will not get things like spam with attachment of large files and for that matter are the isp's not going to send their own buy more of our stuff emails with lots of images and such in them? I certainly don't want to pay for crap I don't want or didn't request to get. I already don't use Comcast's portal page and I sure wouldn't with all the crap they have going on there if I was paying by the byte.
The only way I could see that plan working anywhere in the customers favor is if you start at a bandwidth amount for the month then go per byte rate when you go over that amount. But it needs to start at some reasonable number like 100gb/month. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to tsu9
Re: Silliness.
said by tsu9 :Incumbent execs keep looking at the money being pulled in by outfits like Google, and want a slice of those profits to help subsidize upgrades. Such stupidity. Hey I know....
Consumer broadband users keep looking at the money being pulled in by outfits like AT&T, Time Warner Cable etc, and want a slice of those profits to help subsidize Internet expenses.
Hey, if they wanna "sell" "access" to me to companies like Google, ebay, etc then I think it's only fair I charge them for "Access" to me!
Yeah! that's it! I should send AT&T a notice that starting Oct. 1st they will pay me $9.95 a month for the right to provide Internet service to me!
LOL
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
Not You
@216.237.x.x
| reply to Nuts
said by Nuts :Cable companies pay the local network stations for the rights to carry their content. Uh, no. They are required to carry local stations, and the TV station can't charge for that. |
|
Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | reply to clickie
Your right. I was confusing local stations with ones from other cities that want to be carried in other areas. Channel 10 in columbus, is carried by TW in areas that they can not be gotten via an antenna. |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| reply to Nuts
You are wrong. Local stations are carried free under must-carry rules. No money trades hands for the OTA signal. If the local station wants to broadcast another channel (like a subchannel of the HD signal), then that's a separate negotiation that may require payment to the cable operator. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Pay per bit solves all
Per bit pricing was done away with years ago. The problem isn't bandwidth saturation, which last I heard hasn't nearly tapped the potential of all that dark fiber yet. The problem is these companies want more money. They want that money from other companies that have very successful online business models. They are envious because other companies found a way to make a lot of money while they are still placating to stockholders and playing with their own budget numbers.
The solution is for the incumbent telcos and cablecos to simply shut up. If they want more revenue they need to work on a revenue stream that actually offers their customers something more instead of restricting customers of what they currently enjoy. |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| reply to tsu9
Re: Silliness.
said by tsu9 :Whereas we keep wondering how these execs keep pulling in their multimillion dollar paychecks, and where all of our money is really going, if not to help upgrade networks (in part). Even if the CEOs of the telcos gave up their paychecks entirely it wouldn't begin to cover the costs of upgrading their gigantic networks.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  reply to tsu9
Pay per bit solves all
The solution that should be implemented to address all bandwidth hog issues - a pay per bit pricing model. With that model, those who consume the most bandwidth pay the most money. This does 2 things:
It puts the burden of upgrading infrastructure on those causing the need for an upgrade. And it puts a self-limit on those biggest bandwidth hogs - how much are they willing to pay to consume huge amounts of bandwidth. At some point they will cut their usage to match their available funds.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to Not You
Re: Silliness.
I thought you were saying the cable companies are trying to be proactive and start charging before content providers like Google do. I am in complete agreement that the incumbent data carriers (cable and telco) want to double dip the revenue pot, and that they shouldn't be given a chance to.
In regards to Google I have no issues with them charging for premium content as long as they continue to keep the current free services free. Heck, Google has been expanding their free services for quite some time now so if they continue to add free content I would even be more satisfied even if they charged for the top shelf stuff. |
|
Not You
@88.198.x.x
| reply to SRFireside
You missed the key part of that comment: "Ad free". Google is a restless beast. At some point they'll get into charging for "premium content" just like they've done with Google Earth.
Back to the issue at hand...I'm quite sure that broadcast TV stations never ever imagined they'd be forced to pay to be on cable, but that happened to a certain extent with paid channel placement. It is a very short walk from that to charging high-profile websites for "premium placement" via unencumbered network QoS through an ISPs (or backbone's) data paths. If they don't want to be on the Internet equivalent of channel 73 instead of 7, they'll have to pay.
Don't kid yourself. The cable companies are drooling into their morel encrusted Kobe beef fillets at the prospect. |
|
