Sonic CEO Discusses The "Five Levels of ISP Evil"

Can we define "costlier"? Even if it's exceedingly large volumes of data, they can use tiered storage, compress the hell out of it and move it off-line onto something cheap. Off-line also adds a security barrier. Furthermore, if they separate url logs, DHCP logs and customer data (i.e. mac address), that's a second security barrier. Access logs are anonymous until cross-referenced with the DHCP logs and customer data. Finally, off-line retention can be encrypted which adds another security barrier.

Of course if the customer is at risk because the ISP is tempted... If you cannot trust the palace guards perhaps it's time to flee.

Can we define "costlier"? Even if it's exceedingly large volumes of data, they can use tiered storage, compress the hell out of it and move it off-line onto something cheap.

I don't know if I would go so far as to call it a threat. While I agree that caps aren't consumer friendly or pro Internet (at least they way they are currently employed), they really just impede progress. For instance, if I come up with the next social networking craze but it eats bandwidth, even though it's free to use it would suffer because folks would meter their activity to avoid the network nanny charges.

However, if we were to really meter bandwidth (no minimum, no maximum, just pay for what you use) and there was a direct relationship between the true cost to deliver that data (plus a decent profit for the carrier), I think all of our costs would go down.

What we have today is kind of like billing for telephone calls in hour increments. It's just crazy.

#include "why ISPs should not be utilities"

Let's just say for a moment I were on board with running an I[SA]P like a utility (with UBB). There are any number of models which could be applied, as there are a wide variety of ways utilities bill; it's not just limited to flat rate and pay-per-(prefix)byte-moved. For example, National Fuel, my gas provider, bills some fixed rate every month, which includes some (small) volume of gas. Then there is a charge per (volume, therm, something), which is further broken down into supply, delivery, etc., then taxes and such are added on. So to make an analogy to an IAP, there could be some flat rate charged per month which goes towards equipment and equipment maintenance, optionally including your first (prefix)bytes transferred, and then a hopefully reasonable charge per (prefix)bytes transferred.

I further really can't be on board with it though because it's my understanding there aren't companies which charge per-byte-moved anymore, just charge for some CIR. I also am very much opposed to this peak/off-peak notion, simply because I have yet to be shown how it costs the IAP anything more to move bytes during some peak period. Again, if this were the upstream policy, I could relate, and change my thinking on that. But as it is, the costs are relatively stable over the course of a day or week. The only minor variation on that which I can think of is local electrical providers and their darned peak/off-peak billing, and the fact that a non-idle processor (such as in a router) will draw more electric power than an idle one. But I doubt the difference is a large enough percentage of operating costs to even matter.

Again, I plead possible ignorance, and I'm thoroughly willing to be told by a credible source that my understandings are wrong.

So if I apply your reasoning to a brick-and-mortar retail store chain, Sam's and CostCo are probably the only retailers capable of making a profit. The rest are just cooking their books and doomed to bankruptcy.

If I apply it to car manufacturers, they too are cooking their books because I don't have to belong to a car club that pays for their billion dollar manufacturing plants all so they can build and sell me a car.

I just don't understand that line of thought.

What you need to understand is I don't like metered billing either and I agree with you that we should be able to have unlimited bandwidth for some set, monthly fee. However, that doesn't mean that a truly metered service is IMPOSSIBLE. The cost per byte and average monthly usage needs to be set a rate that pays for all the property, plant and equipment depreciation and maintenance. They could even offer a deal so that the cost per byte drops as you reach certain usage plateaus.

We don't have metered services today. We have some bizarre money grab from monopolistic/duopolistic corporations whose investors are expecting get-rich-quick schemes. They aren't satisfied with a 5% dividend payout. They want to double their money every three years and any company that doesn't will be devalued and dumped by the market.

I don't buy it. By your own logic, your scheme will have the bandwidth hogs pay less than those who just do some light surfing and e-mail. That's why the ISP's claim we all should welcome metered billing.

You can fix that by dropping the price once you go beyond four hours. Don't the electric, gas and water companies do this? Aren't their business models the same? You don't get any free electricity, gas or water. While electricity and gas companies expenses rise with increased usage because there is a cost to create/acquire the raw product they deliver, what about the water company? Where I live they draw water from the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. As far as I know, mother nature doesn't charge a fee and their sanitation costs should be fixed, sans adding chlorine and fluoride, since they build to a certain capacity just like ISPs.

Try again to convince me why an ISP is so special that it cannot be run like any other business.

Why do you keep drawing distinctions based on whether or not the product is physical or some kind of service?

Does a water company have usage costs? Don't they build to a capacity like ISPs and whether or not they deliver 100 million gallons or 100 billion gallons, the raw material they use is free? Do their sanitation costs really rise that much when they clean a lot more or are they relatively fixed sans minor linear relationships in power consumption and chemical treatment costs?

So if I apply your reasoning to a brick-and-mortar retail store chain, Sam's and CostCo are probably the only retailers capable of making a profit. The rest are just cooking their books and doomed to bankruptcy.

If I apply it to car manufacturers, they too are cooking their books because I don't have to belong to a car club that pays for their billion dollar manufacturing plants all so they can build and sell me a car.

I just don't understand that line of thought.

What you need to understand is I don't like metered billing either and I agree with you that we should be able to have unlimited bandwidth for some set, monthly fee. However, that doesn't mean that a truly metered service is IMPOSSIBLE. The cost per byte and average monthly usage needs to be set a rate that pays for all the property, plant and equipment depreciation and maintenance. They could even offer a deal so that the cost per byte drops as you reach certain usage plateaus.

We don't have metered services today. We have some bizarre money grab from monopolistic/duopolistic corporations whose investors are expecting get-rich-quick schemes. They aren't satisfied with a 5% dividend payout. They want to double their money every three years and any company that doesn't will be devalued and dumped by the market.