said by Jerm :

Greedy corporations

said by BabyBear :

Haven't seen "speed" based Comcast commericals here in Chicago in quite a few months. Just bascially been big big push on the $33 triple play offer.

said by NOCMan :

If everyone bought content and had normal habits nobody would be complaining like they are now.

[...] the author suggests that those users who are bogging down the system by using “excessive” bandwidth should be refused service. And for another, the claim is made that cable subscribers don’t really care about speed; they care about service quality which is only partially composed of fast speeds.

said by SilverSurfer :

Just ask the average user -described as anyone under 40- what he thinks about his speed.

said by openbox9 :

I think your understanding of average isn't necessarily an accurate one.

said by Neyland85 :

Then why do you have 10/1?

said by Neyland85 :

So it depends where you want to be tommorrow. Where are the technologies of tommorow and what is possible with more bandwidth. Could you do a 'thin client' type appliance that a majority of your computing over the net?

When you look at moving VOIP,Data,HD Video onto the mainstream networks then no, 1.5/256 simply isn't going to cut it.

said by openbox9 :

Because I currently get it at a lower cost than if I switched to a 1.5/256 tier. Once my cableco stops giving me "I can't pass it up" deals, I will be switching.Of course tomorrow's technologies will demand more, and when they're here I'm all for the bandwidth that will be necessary. And I have no doubt the ISPs will be willing to sell you that bandwidth.

Rather than capping – and irking – 100 percent of their customers, MSOs should simply refuse service to the hogs. Let them switch to FiOS and cripple a competitor's cashflow.

said by karlmarx :

Where in the HELL are you getting the $1.00 per GB number? If yuo start with that OUTRAGEOUS assumption, then of course the numbers are going to be totally screwed.

said by openbox9 :

My turn to PDOOMA numbers.

The COST for an ISP to build and maintain infrastructure to a large quantity of users works out to about $900 per user, which the ISP is kind enough to amortize over two years. The additional COST for an ISP to provide 1 GB of data transfer is approximately $1.00 (1 dollar). When ISPs charge by the byte, the $1.00 (1 dollar) per GB is almost a fair price. There needs to be a "profit" on top of the cost, so let's assume a modest 20% markup. That now gives a cost of $1.20 (1 dollar and 20 cents) as the cost of 1 GB of data transfer. So, including the amortization, that works out to about $38.70 (38 dollars and 70 cents) for granny's use of 1 GB and $637.50 (637 dollars and 50 cents) for big P2P user. Now you may be thinking that this sounds great and that after 24 months customers' bills will drop to $1.20 (1 dollar and 20 cents) for granny and $60 (60 dollars) for big P2P user, but don't get too excited because ISPs must now pay for infrastructure upgrades to enable even greater use of resources for "BitTorrent Part Deux". The ISPs will once again spend $900 per user (kindly amortized over 24 months) to upgrade the plant, therefore maintaining consumers' bills at $38.70 (38 dollars and 70 cents) for granny and $637.50 (637 dollars and 50 cents) for big P2P user. Granny will be very happy that she doesn't have to subsidize big P2P user's gluttonous abuse of shared resources. Big P2P user is sad because he realizes that his actions have a real cost and he can't continue to milk his neighbors and his ISP.

said by openbox9 :

Wow, Dave Burstein can throw out numbers just like KarlMarx and I can. Do you seriously think it only costs AT&T $1 per customer per month to build infrastructure, maintain that infrastructure, provide service, provide technical support and customer service, and increase/expand infrastructure to provide additional service? Why don't we have ISPs popping up all over the place with that kind or markup? I've got a couple hundred bucks that I'm willing to start an ISP with. That should get me started with 200 customers. At $24.95 per month, I'll be raking in just shy of $4800/mth. Gotta love easy money

said by openbox9 :

I'm not sure where your tangent is going.

said by openbox9 :

I still think bill-per-byte is the best alternative. It allows providers to maintain existing customers while controlling traffic growth and/or increasing revenue for infrastructure expansion.

said by openbox9 :

Bandwidth outside of residential ISP connections is typically billed in this manner and it hasn't seemed to stymie the Internet explosion at all.

said by TK Junk Mail :

said by MattE :

I bet their franchise agreements wouldn't allow them to do this.

said by djrobx :

quote:

---

Rather than capping – and irking – 100 percent of their customers, MSOs should simply refuse service to the hogs. Let them switch to FiOS and cripple a competitor's cashflow.

---

Its a great quote. But it's problematic - Define "hog". Once you define "hog", you've capped 100% of your customers.

said by moonpuppy :

It's the top 1% of users.

But once those people are gone, then you hit the next top 1% until you have nothing left.

said by jasonD :

Something has to happen, whether it's slowing VOD content down, blocking it completely, caps, or working out some sort of revenue sharing agreement. I