Myhrddin
join:2003-12-12
Beaumont, TX
1 edit | reply to rachelsfx
Re: Silliness.
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 |
|
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. |
|
bob2-00
@swbell.net
| reply to Ebolla
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 |
|
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. |
|
