tcharp
T C
Premium
join:2002-10-23
Lubbock, TX | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Easy solution for both content & access providers ...
I think you can still have large providers banning access to other providers content even if you charge by the bit. I think its more a matter of $$$.
-TC |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail  :... charge by the byte after a certain monthly cap is exceeded, just like Telus & Shaw does for their broadband connections as mentioned in this other BBR story: » Telus 6Mbps Tier This approach doesn't give an incentive for an ISP to be neutral though. Consider this example:
Say you have Comcast HSI which has its own digital phone service. This service competes directly with every other VoIP provider out there. Even if Comcast was charging by the byte, they can still block or degrade the connections to other VoIP providers as a means of favoring their own phone service.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
978y9iuj
@shawcable.net
| reply to TKJunkMail
"just like Telus & Shaw does for their broadband connections as mentioned in this other BBR story"
Shaw does not charge for going over their cap. If you abuse it alot and often you will be warned, that is all.
As for telus, it sounds as if they do not as I hear from telus users that there cap is a soft cap. A telus user can give you a more accurate response for the telus stance. |
|
AnonDOG
 from:
TKJunkMail
| reply to karlmarx
quote:
If your idea is so smart, why don't ANY providers actually do that?
They don't do that because of the way the Internet service community arose. In the early days it was difficult to do the accounting on a byte per byte basis and the ISPs would have actually made less money if they had charged by the byte.
In 1998 I was operating a dialup ISP with only 8 phone lines and I *DID* bill by the byte. I had 56 subscribers. I billed five dollars per month for access and so many cents per minute on line.
The highest monthly bill I ever send out was about 18 dollars. So the idea is smart and does work.
quote:
I mean, you would so like to see charging by the byte, but if I pay by the byte, then I only pay for bytes I specifically request. That means no pop-ups, no banners, no ads, no spam, no nothing.
Since your browser pulls those pop-ups, banners, ads and spam and since the ISP has no way of knowing which banners, ads, and spam you don't want, you do pay for those bytes. Otherwise someone would tell the ISP that he was censoring their data. Clearly nobody wants censorship. We are an ISP and we do not manage *ANY* content to our users. They get whatever they pull. They are responsible if their fifteen year old pulls kiddie porn, even if mom and dad don't want it. As far as that goes, if someone comes to us with a subpoena regarding content, we answer it as soon as possible and as completely as possible. So will you on that upstream 10 mb torrent if you share the wrong stuff. You may think otherwise but it is hard to stop the Marshall from carrying your server out the door while you are explaining to his buddy that the handcuffs are not necessary. 
quote:
I get only exactly what I want, because otherwise, the ISP is ripping me off. It's not MY fault I use over 1000GB/month.
Whose fault is it then? Of course it is your fault you use the bandwidth you use. If you provide a service and people use it, you are responsible for sending those bytes. You can turn off the service, can you not? If you use a service on the Internet, you are responsible for those bytes. You are not required to use that service, are you?
quote:
I am paying for a PIPE to the internet, and I can use it as I see fit.
We have a 10 MBit pipe to the Internet which is shared among our customers. If you were to pull 1000 GB/Month that would equate to approximately 30 percent of the total traffic that our connection to the Internet can support. Should you be charged thirty percent of our total cost for our fractional DS-3? Well if you were not, we would go out of business fairly quickly, would we not?
quote:
If they want to charge me more than 35.00 for a 10/10 connection, then they should. Oh, WAIT, I get my internet access from my town owned utility! I guess the taxpayers are subsidizing me! Haha!
It is good that you feel you are getting over on the taxpayers, at least that demonstrates that you have a grasp of the truth, even if your grasp of business realities is somewhat shakey. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to TKJunkMail
Charging per byte does nothing to make the whole issue of net neutrality go away. Its a fantasy to think otherwise because charge per byte doesn't eliminate the competition in the two VoIPs that the Bells are freaking out about.
The statement that this has ANYTHING to do with the costs associated with people using their internet connections is a diversion from the real issue and you have fallen right for it. The real issue is that the Bells and the MSOs are unprepared to compete against the Google Videos and You Tubes because they would be working on the old school business model that won't work in the internet age.
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to TKJunkMail
If your idea is so smart, why don't ANY providers actually do that? I mean, you would so like to see charging by the byte, but if I pay by the byte, then I only pay for bytes I specifically request. That means no pop-ups, no banners, no ads, no spam, no nothing. I get only exactly what I want, because otherwise, the ISP is ripping me off. It's not MY fault I use over 1000GB/month. I am paying for a PIPE to the internet, and I can use it as I see fit. If they want to charge me more than 35.00 for a 10/10 connection, then they should. Oh, WAIT, I get my internet access from my town owned utility! I guess the taxpayers are subsidizing me! Haha!
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to TKJunkMail
That's fine. Or they can just raise the fees that they charge everyone for the service they provide. What they should not be able to do is charge companies that they're NOT providing service to. Which is what it's all about. Everyone pays for the bandwidth they use now. If the companies want to charge more than they're free to do so. But don't try to charge companies that you DON'T provide service to and access fee to deliver content to the ISP's customers that were requested by the customer. That's rubbish. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  ... charge by the byte after a certain monthly cap is exceeded, just like Telus & Shaw does for their broadband connections as mentioned in this other BBR story: »Telus 6Mbps Tier
That way those that are receiving exceedingly large amounts of traffic will bear the majority of the costs needed to upgrade the access providers infrastructure. Just like in other businesses whose costs are affected by the amount of product consumed. Like water; natural gas; electricity; etc.
This way, there are no net neutrality issues. The only issue is are people willing to pay a premium for content that is more cheaply delivered thru broadcast mechanisms instead of point-to-point over the internet.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
