ZDNET: The Evil EFF's Quest For Metered BandwidthEFF: ZDNET has no idea what they're talking about... ( old news - 03:05PM Friday Dec 07 2007) tags: prices · competition · business · bandwidth · cable · PoliticsIf you've read the EFF's analysis of Comcast's use of forged RST packets to throttle upstream p2p bandwidth, it's clear their primary point was that Comcast took extreme actions before exploring other, less severe bandwidth management possibilities (including less egregious forms of dynamic, per user traffic shaping). Yet according ZDNET's George Ou (who we'll assume is not doing a Stephen Colbert impression), the EFF really has a secret agenda: impose metered bandwidth on America. Well no thanks EFF, I as an American have no interest in paying higher prices like they do in Australia (no offense to the beautiful country of Australia and its people). Not only does a metered Internet service plan screw the low-end users, it makes BitTorrent or any kind of peer-to-peer networking cost prohibitive. The EFF ironically claims its standing up for BitTorrent rights when it fact it would kill it with metered Internet services. In the comment section the EFF has a few bones to pick with that characterization: Unfortunately George Ou's piece contains a number of factual errors about our position on the Comcast affair, which we are waiting for him to correct. Aside from misrepresenting our position, we believe there are many flaws in his justification for Comcast's behaviour and his characterization of the Australian broadband market. Please rest assured that we are not campaigning to make consumers pay astronomical prices for their Internet access, as Mr Ou has falsely suggested. Our objectives are to ensure that Comcast either stop interfering with their users' traffic, or at the very least, that they admit that they are doing it, and explain their methods and why they believe them to be necessary. That way, users can make informed decisions about whether they wish to continue doing business with Comcast. We recently spoke with a number of the largest ISPs and found that none of them had any plan to shift to a metered billing model, secret EFF cabal or no. Several looked at the per-byte billing model imposed in Australia and realized there would be a severe consumer backlash. As for the EFF, it's fairly clear that their goal is transparency, not saddling their constituents (consumers) with $2,000 broadband bills.
Related:- Vonage Slams Shaw $10 VoIP Fee
- RCN Fights FiOS
- When Will Cable Be Forced To Lower Broadband Prices?
- Mediacom to offer 20Mbps by End Of June
- Comcast Installs DOCSIS 3.0 In Two New Markets
- DSL Takes A Beating
- Network Neutrality Debate Was, Still Is, About Greed
- RCN Offers Less For More
|
 nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | the turfers strike back do a google search on George Ou and most of the hits are articles about what a tool this guy is - "microsoft shill" is one phrase used.
regardless of his background, claiming that EFF wants consumers to pay by the bit is just rank FUD. | |
| |  | | | | | | | | 
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs: | Re: Blocks of data Hell, I'd be willing to pay more right now, just to get the damn filter and throttling off my line. | |
| | | | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·ViaTalk
| Re: Blocks of data If they decide to charge $79.99 per extra 100 GB, would you consider that "fair"? What if you neighbor doesn't think that's fair?
The provider gets to decide what's "fair" because they are the ones providing the service. I'm sure that Australia's ISPs would consider their packages to be fair -- after all, people sign up for them and pay the bills.
Or did you have a different definition of "fair" in mind? | |
| | | | | |
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
 ·Suddenlink
 ·Cirtex Hosting
| Re: Blocks of data said by jester121  :If they decide to charge $79.99 per extra 100 GB, would you consider that "fair"? What if you neighbor doesn't think that's fair? The provider gets to decide what's "fair" because they are the ones providing the service. I'm sure that Australia's ISPs would consider their packages to be fair -- after all, people sign up for them and pay the bills. Or did you have a different definition of "fair" in mind? No, I wouldn't consider that a fair price.
If that were the price, I'd be more careful with what I used my bandwidth for, which is sort of the whole point of usage based pricing.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
| | | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Why would you pay the same amount for a 'premium' service with CAPS, when you can get the exact same thing without a cap. Hell, if you downloaded 1TB/month, you would be out 29.95+80.00=109.95, vs. the 29.95 fee you would pay for the regular package? Sure, if your a gamer, the latency might make you go for the premium, but I guantee you that's not their big seller.
option 1: $29.95/month @ 5mb/sec UNLIMITED where you can download a about 1.5TB/month vs option 2:paying 29.95+130.00 = 159.95/month? Who chooses option 1? Everyone
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
RCertz
@com.au
| Re: Blocks of data I live in Australia, unlimited is not truely unlimited. You go past a predetermined amount, 20gb; then you are shaped to 64k until the next billing cycle. I have use a data block plan. Yes it makes me more selective of my downloads. I also have peak and nonpeak download times, 2am-10am. So I use a download manager and schedule my downloads. So while unlimited means you still have internet, you have to live with their terms. | |
| | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| said by TheMG :Exactly what TekSavvy is doing right now for their premium service, and with great success. It comes with 200GB base bandwidth and the option of purchasing extra 100GB blocks for $10, or $0.25/GB overage. Those are reasonable prices.
Metered use is fine as long as the prices are reasonable. Metered use is not fine as long as the prices are unreasonable.
These are extremely simple concepts, and there are exceedingly amazingly large numbers of people both as consumers and MBAs that fail to understand them. | |
| | | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk
| Re: Blocks of data said by Ulmo :Those are reasonable prices. Metered use is fine as long as the prices are reasonable. Metered use is not fine as long as the prices are unreasonable. These are extremely simple concepts, and there are exceedingly amazingly large numbers of people both as consumers and MBAs that fail to understand them. And the devil's in the details -- in this case, semantics. You've declared that those prices are "reasonable", based on how important service is to you, your disposable income, and however you derived what your ISP "should" be charging.
It's funny how ISPs get hammered all the time when they make a decision about "reasonable" usage levels as relates to caps, etc. | |
| | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | i like your plan. | |
| karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Metered bandwidth will never work For the final time. THERE IS NO UNIT COST to move a byte. PERIOD. If you copy a byte from one computer on your network to another computer, the total cost is you CAPITAL COST (i.e. network card, cable, switch). It doesn't matter if you move 1 byte or 1TB, the cost is exactly the same.
When you are dealing with an ISP, they pay for a certain PIPE SIZE to the internet. If they only use 1% of that pipe, they STILL PAY the same amount as if they used 90%. If you buy a T-1, there will never be (and there ISN'T in Australia), a 'per-byte charge'. You pay for the pipe, and whether you use it or not, the price remains the same.
The problem is, that the megacorps want you to believe there is a higher cost if you use more bandwidth. THERE ISN'T, except for the capital costs to build the network. If they are SELLING EVERYONE 10mb/sec, then they need to spend enough capital to provide everyone with 10mb/sec. Overselling is the way the spread the capital costs over many people. BUT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN COST IF YOU USE 1GB/month or 1TB/month. The problem occurs when too many people attempt to use what they were sold.
For the final time. Bandwidth itself is FREE. Bytes are FREE. CAPITAL COSTS are EXPENSIVE.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | | | | frost203
join:2005-09-17
| Re: Metered bandwidth will never work said by gatorkram :If you look at the commercial market, for dedicated servers, webhosting, etc etc, you will find most of the market includes caps, and then a cost for going over those caps. Very few of these services are offered in an unlimited manner. Why should the residential side of this coin be any different? But just because they are sold as metered doesn't mean that the metering was implemented due to direct correlation to cost. Quotas like metering are similar to long distance calling. while in the small scheme it may seem as if it could cost more to make long distance calls but if the network is already built and in use then directing a call to the neighbor across the street becomes the same as across the country.
Marketers are good at getting people to believe that there "are differences" and thats why we "should" pay more. | |
| | | |
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
·Suddenlink
·Cirtex Hosting
| Re: Metered bandwidth will never work The problem with unlimited service, like we sort of have now in the residential sector, is just what we are seeing now. The networks can't handle what the users are trying to do. There is no penalty for abusing the network. If you make people pay for what they use, they won't be for free for all about how much they use.
Some say there is no cost, for the bandwidth, so there shouldn't be a pay-for-what-you-use model. Well, the pipe is only so big, and if there is no drawback to everyone using it 24/7/365 they will.
Much like why long distance calling wasn't sold as unlimited, it was because the lines to make those calls were not an unlimited resource.
Sure, I wish we could all have 100mbit pipes, and use them at full utilization 24/7, but the money has to come from someplace, to buy all the equipment and the lines to support all that usage.
I realize, this is the usage model the ISPs chose, and I realize they should be spending more money to upgrade their networks, but I also understand everyone is in the game to make money, and if they started to charge more, to the people who use more, we could hope they'd use that money to support the users who are paying for it.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
| | | | | frost203
join:2005-09-17
| Re: Metered bandwidth will never work The only reason to "upgrade" is if their user base grow duh...
if you have a 100mbs pipe, give 10 users 10mbs each then of course you will need to upgrade the network if you acquire 5 more users, otherwise now you got certain user using "their" allotted bandwidth but this now slows down a few of the others because the pipe is small. so either upgrade the network to accommodate new users or do not over sell the pipe. DON'T say i got 10mbs of a 100mbs pipe that is shared by 20 others who you promised 10mbs as well.
with this type of thinking i should sell my car multiple times to bob, joe, and Ernie and tell all of them the are sole owners. | |
| | | | | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk
| Re: Metered bandwidth will never work You clearly have no clue about how residential bandwidth markets work. So called "oversubscribing" is how they're able to offer 10Mbps for $40 (or whatever low prices we've become used to). It's based on statisically how much aggregate bandwidth is needed to support X number of typical subscribers.
Under your scenario I assure you, you wouldn't be paying less than $50 a month. Price out a dedicated 10Mbps business class circuit sometime and you'll see what "fair" pricing is. | |
| | | | | | | frost203
join:2005-09-17
| Re: Metered bandwidth will never work "business class" exactly a term coined by marketers to imply that the service is somehow more special. its a pipe, a pipe just like any other. their statistical analysis is to maximize users and bandwidth, this model obviously has flaws they gotta use a new model. ISPs gotta realize that people will having their PCs up day and night, their network "the network we pay for" should accommodate that. | |
| | | | | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: Metered bandwidth will never work What are you smoking. As I SAID, they pay based on the SIZE of the pipe, of course, they DON'T pay based on the amount of bandwidth they used. Sure, they can pay the 95% percentile, hell, that's how my T-3 was billed. But that's NOT A BYTE CHARGE, that's a UTILIZATION CHARGE. If they use 1%, the will pay EXACTLY the same as if they used 95%. That's how 95% billing works. If comcast suddenly dropped 90% of their traffic, their BILL wouldn't be any lower, but they WOULD be overpaying for a pipe much bigger than they needed.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Metered bandwidth will never work karlmarx, you're ignoring the bottom line of consumer behavior. While there may be no incremental cost to move a particular packet, overall there is a "per packet" cost because if a full network experiences a doubling of demand, then the ISP must buy twice the pipe to support it.
(To some degree, capacity is "lumpy" in the sense that utility electric plants and water treatment plants are--small increments are near free, but sooner or later you hit that 101% of capacity when you have to incur the cost of acquiring the next step in capacity. It's not that the extra movie you download incurs a definite cost--it's that if your 10,000 neighbors also download an extra movie, there may be a capacity upgrade required by your ISP, and THAT is what costs.)
To put it another way, your "no incremental cost" argument would mean it's pointless for me to install an efficient light bulb as the 45 watt savings is so small as to be undetectable by the electric utility. In reality, however, if my neighbors and I ALL install efficient light bulbs, then the utility may be able to avoid the cost of a new level of capacity--and THAT is where the savings is. When you pay by the kWh for electricity, you're paying for the fixed cost of the plant as well as fuel--and with plant costs escalating wildly, it makes sense to roll that cost into a usage sensitive charge.
And clearly, this analysis applies only to SHARED capacity, where there are increasing capacity needs based on usage. No, this doesn't include the cost of the drop to your house, but it does include the cost of everything "upstream" of the first network hub, whether that is a telco CO or DSLAM, or a cable neighborhood box. It's when usage starts to cause (or threaten) congestion on these upstream facilities and capacity expansion is necessary.
And no, there's no possible justification for claiming that you are paying for a totally clear connection to every peering point--that would be prohibitively expensive in a residential market.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| 
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Charter Pipeline
| Yeah but... "Not only does a metered Internet service plan screw the low-end users, it makes BitTorrent or any kind of peer-to-peer networking cost prohibitive. "
Wait, how does it screw the low-end users? Or anyone for that matter. If you use it, you pay for it. If you use it more, you pay more. What's missing here?
The only thing I see is that metered service needs to really CHEAP per byte, or KB, or MB or some agreeable metric. Which is probably the thing that's never going to happen.
If it did, I don't see why metered wouldn't work. However, leave it to the corps to overcharge for everything and have everyone getting lynch mobs prepared.
--
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.) | |
| Test99
Premium
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·InPhonex
| In Favor Of By-The-Byte Pricing I'm very much in favor of by-the-byte pricing. Let me explain by an analogy.
In the early days in the BBR VOIP forum, nearly everyone wanted "unlimited" local and long distance calling. People had little tolerance for by-the-minute pricing. But over time, light users came to realize that "unlimited" plans forced them to subsidize heavy users. Now there's a significant number of people who prefer by-the-minute plans, and many VOIP providers offer both options.
I make all the calls I want using a by-the-minute plan for about one third of what I would pay for an "unlimited" plan. There's no way I would ever go back to an "unlimited" plan.
What if Internet providers offered a choice of "unlimited" and by-the-byte pricing? I'd be ecstatic if I could cut my broadband bill by two thirds, or better yet if I could choose maybe ten times the speed for the same price I'm paying now.
I have absolutely nothing against Bit Torrent. I just don't want to subsidize others' use of it.
For light users, what's not to like about by-the-byte pricing?
--
50775@fwd.pulver.com | |
| | 
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| Re: In Favor Of By-The-Byte Pricing Cable doesn't want pay by the byte 'cause they couldn't get the $45 minimum from users who only are using the service for surfing and POP3. If users are going to pay by the MB, they're going to expect a $10 connection fee like telephone, THEN the bandwidth charges.
But for the record I would support such a system. I consume hundreds of GB's per month and would certainly pay $150/mo for my usage. But I would only be so charitable if my neighbors using their service for only surfing and POP3 consuming MAYBE 2GB per month pay $10-$15. Otherwise it would just be more of the same ISP double-dipping. | |
| | | kingroach
join:2004-12-09
Astoria, NY
| Re: In Favor Of By-The-Byte Pricing exactly.. if ISP's offer a fair per-byte scheme then they will loose eventually since ratio between so called bandwidth hogs and "normal" web surfing user is really large.. Its the same reason the cable/dish doesnt want to go la-carte.. I can buy 200 channel for $100 which means 1 channel is $.50.. but even even if they increase channel pricing by 200% to $2 per channel.. I would just order max 15 channel and pay them only $30.. | |
| | | | |
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs: | Re: In Favor Of By-The-Byte Pricing I agree %100 with your analogy. As long as they give a fair amount up front, and a fair price for overage packages, and they get rid of all the filters, and throttling, I am all for it. | |
| | |
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| said by DHRacer :Why wouldn't this work for internet?? It easily would but the situation now is no one is doing it. It would be like all cellular companies offer virtually unlimited minutes for a price and one is looking to switch to bill by the minute. Unless the plan is aggressively, it's a tough sell. | |
| | | scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
| Yep - I discovered I was using my cell phone so little that paying per minute to Virgin mobile made more sense than paying a monthly plan to Sprint - even though it is exactly the same network. Now, Instead of $30 -$40 per month, I usually average around $6-$7 per month. If I ever get back to where I'm spending $30 -$40 per month on Virgin Mobile - THEN it will be time to revisit going back to a monthly plan again. | |
| | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by Test99 :For light users, what's not to like about by-the-byte pricing? Because it'll be priced to make sure the provider still gets their $50/month
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by Test99 :I'm very much in favor of by-the-byte pricing. Let me explain by an analogy. Now there's a significant number of people who prefer by-the-minute plans, and many VOIP providers offer both options. What if Internet providers offered a choice of "unlimited" and by-the-byte pricing? I'd be ecstatic if I could cut my broadband bill by two thirds, or better yet if I could choose maybe ten times the speed for the same price I'm paying now. I have absolutely nothing against Bit Torrent. I just don't want to subsidize others' use of it. For light users, what's not to like about by-the-byte pricing? I agree. Pay per byte is coming - no matter what some here say.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
| | |
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
edit:
December 7th, @05:45PM
| Re: In Favor Of By-The-Byte Pricing Perhaps, but it would take a lot of major ISPs doing it at the same time. Otherwise it's all of them looking at each other seeing who is going to be the first to do it.
And likely, cable who would want to do it can't, because the telcos have the capacity and won't follow cable to bill by the MB.
And I say telcos have the capacity only in that SO FAR they haven't implemented the phantom caps or user cancellations that some of the cable operators have. I'm also not aware of Verizon or AT&T using aggressive traffic shaping. If they are, then they might follow suit should cable try it.
Widespread DOCSIS 3 deployments may make the entire cable capacity issue moot for at least the short term. | |
| | | 
MattE
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by Test99 :I'm very much in favor of by-the-byte pricing. Let me explain by an analogy. Now there's a significant number of people who prefer by-the-minute plans, and many VOIP providers offer both options. What if Internet providers offered a choice of "unlimited" and by-the-byte pricing? I'd be ecstatic if I could cut my broadband bill by two thirds, or better yet if I could choose maybe ten times the speed for the same price I'm paying now. I have absolutely nothing against Bit Torrent. I just don't want to subsidize others' use of it. For light users, what's not to like about by-the-byte pricing? I agree. Pay per byte is coming - no matter what some here say. Perhaps on the lower tiers, but there will always be an unlimited tier and I doubt it'll be more than what people currently pay.
--
Pretty Fly for a White Guy™ | |
| | redholm
join:2004-10-31
Sunnyvale, CA
| I as you have meter voip but I am not so sure about the metered broadband.
1) I can measure my voip use. Not many users know how to measure their broadband usage. I would not trust the ISP to measure it correctly would you?
2) I can control my voip use. I can limit my calls, hang-up and block with caller id etc. How do you block ads, spam and other junk you do not want? I block email spam but that is after it reaches my server. I do not want to pay bandwidth for spam. Do we think ISP will do a good job of blocking spam?
I have lot of incoming port scan from by ISP network. I do not know if it is the ISP who scan me or their user who are try to hack my network but I do not want to pay for those bytes. Can you imagine the bill of a DoS attach?
3) Some ISP sent updates to the modem surprisingly often like every night why should I pay for that or Microsoft bloated updates. I do not want to pay for their lazy inefficient patch process.
Metered broadband service will only come when I can control it. I do not see enough control today.
I would sign up if all ads and virus and other junk was gone but that will unfortunately never happen. | |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| There is only 1 agenda And that comes from the cable companies wanting to advertise speeds their networks can't support without extensive bandwidth throttling and usage caps.
In their efforts to compete with DSL, cable just ramped up speeds whether their networks could support it or not and the result for some companies was phantom caps, extensive and secretive bandwidth throttling and cancellation of subscriber accounts whether their use impeded the ability to provide service to others or not.
Having fast speeds is great an all, but when you only use it for POP3 and HTTP, or if you can't use it for more than a few hours before getting a nastygram the point is moot.
The EFF's position is very simple. Don't promise "Crazy Fast" speeds to lure customers using that killer app like P2P or usenet, then traffic shape that app into the ground.
If you traffic shape, admit it clearly up front instead of waiting for the AP and users to out them amid denials. If you cap service, clearly state what the caps are instead of accusing users of abusing the service, then in the same breath refusing to clearly define what constitutes abuse.
Of course the cable shills will endlessly excuse make for their masters. Despite whatever twisted cable CEO talking points they'll vomit, there is no excuse for the cable bait and switch that is going on and they need to change their advertising style like Verizon Wireless had to when they got burned lying to customers about their "unlimited" data plan that was anything but.
--
Help keep cable rates low; support "Big Cable" in their fight against the extortionists at the NFL Network! | |
|
ASIMO
@intel.com | "RST Packets to Throttle Upstream" It is residential service not commercial, so get over it already would you. | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: "RST Packets to Throttle Upstream" said by ASIMO :
It is residential service not commercial, so get over it already would you.
Lets have your power go out every morning from 6-8AM, then from 4-8PM. Hey, it is residential service not commercial, so get over it already would you. | |
| BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| water and electricity should be unmetered. Since obviously that's the better system.
Do you remember being always told to turn off the lights or close the door? Or perhaps you tell people that yourself. Why? Because you are paying per kilowatt. If your electric company charged you one rate you wouldn't care how much you used. Would that be a good thing? No of course not.
Metered bandwidth would make people aware of how much they are actually using.
it makes BitTorrent or any kind of peer-to-peer networking cost prohibitive. Yeha and that's bad? So it's more expensive to steal the latest HD version of a movie instead of paying for it like you should. So what. | |
| |
DS20
@centurytel.net
| Re: water and electricity should be unmetered. said by BF69 :Since obviously that's the better system. Do you remember being always told to turn off the lights or close the door? Or perhaps you tell people that yourself. Why? Because you are paying per kilowatt. If your electric company charged you one rate you wouldn't care how much you used. Would that be a good thing? No of course not. Metered bandwidth would make people aware of how much they are actually using. it makes BitTorrent or any kind of peer-to-peer networking cost prohibitive. Yeha and that's bad? So it's more expensive to steal the latest HD version of a movie instead of paying for it like you should. So what. Go to hell. Seriously. People who use BT or know how to actually use their connection to its fullest extent do NOT MAKE THEM PIRATES. TV isn't metered, so neither should the net. Metering the net would drastically change the entire system, especially in the direction it is heading with VOIP and IPTV. | |
| | |
duck liver
@comcast.net | Re: water and electricity should be unmetered. go crawl back up your mamas ass where you came from you moron. 99% of bt traffic is illegal movies, music, warez, and porn. you are a typical teenage fucktard. | |
| | | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: water and electricity should be unmetered. said by djrobx :Actually there are plenty of places where you play a flat rate for utilities, typically included in a rental agreement. Friend of mine lived in an apartment in West Hollywood and he could use as much electricity as he pleased. Good for him 99.9% of everyone else doesn't live that way.
Its simple math really. Yes, there is a small percentage of "hogs" who will use more than their fair share. There are enough "lighter" users who will happily subsidize them in exchange for the privilege of not having to worry about doing something wrong / getting infected with a virus and getting slammed with a huge bill. I seriousy doubt if you told most people that their bill is double what it should be because of a small minority of users gobbling of bandwidth, that they be HAPPY about anything.
Also a virus eating up bandwidth? Sounds like the dog ate my homework. Even if true you'd rather have thousands if not millions of people be blissfully unaware that a virus in their comuter wasting god knows untold amounts of bandwidth which affect EVERYONE. Because if they were aware they get rid of the virus and thus your point would be moot. If someone is so dumb that they leave their computer unportected to the point that a virus can eat up hundreds of GBs a month in bandwidth then maybe they don't deserve internet access at all.
As redholm's excellent post points out, it's far easier for average joes to get a grip on what's making their electric meters spin than it is to figure out what's racking up bandwidth charges.
Yes let's dumb down the world. At anyrate if I asked the "average joe" what a kilowatt is he wouldn't have a clue. If I asked him how much his electric company charges per kilowatt he wouldn't have a clue. If I ask him how much electricity his fridge, water heater and TV used each month he woudn't have a clue. If I asked him how much electricity would a 60 watt bulb use in a month if left on 24 hours a day he wouldn't have a clue.
Most people have cell phones. That's metered. People seem to get that. | |
| stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA
edit:
December 8th, @01:32AM
| metered bandwidth.. No thanks.
I like my current 6/768 DSL connection just fine. Not having to worry about how much I use per month is what having internet access is all about.
Same thing with data access with my current cell phone providers(T-mobile, Sprint), I want as much as I use for a flat rate. Period. Sprint's PowerVision TV uses LOTS of bandwidth..but their basic package is $15.00 a month and this also includes Web 2.0 access. T-Mobile's $19.95 access includes their HotSpot WiFi service-great for tak'in my laptop while enjoying a good cup of coffee. Not to mention that iPhone/iTouch folks will be using T-Mobile's HotSpot for iTunes music. I also enjoy ATT's WiFi because I have their "elite" DSL service-rather a nice perk, eh?
Have no problem pay'in the monthly rate. Those folks in Canada can't get an iPhone with a data package like ATT's...because their cellular companies charge per kB used.
Screw that!
 | |
| 
TMMerlin
The Devil made me do it
join:2003-06-19
Oxford, MI
·EarthLink
| Metered Bandwidth is coming ..like it or not ! It's just a matter of time !!
Why would "any" ISP do anything to mess with bandwidth such as Comcast did ? P2P, VOiP, MP3, IPTV ..anything that hogs bandwidth puts a severe strain on embedded plant and the pipes. Open Internet does not mean "unlimited usage" and the business to change to metered usage is only a matter of time.
If this was not going to happen, things would be hunky-dorry and there would not have been a Comcast "event".. There would not have been a Verizon "event" on how do you define the word "unlimited"..
Simply stated ..It costs a lot of money to make an Internet.
As the "powers to be" get tired of the monthly balance sheet reeming their butt ..something will have to give..and that something is "end user cost to do intertnet".
It's gonna happen ..so we may all just immigrate to Australia now and "get used to it"..!
--
Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy but they become legend. | |
| russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Metered bandwidth sucks You might as well put a coin slot on your web browser. Every time it lights up, stick a coin in. Mistyped a URL -- or hit a google search result that was out of date -- and went to a high-bandwidth ad-laden squatter's page? Too bad, time to put more coins in. Your not-so-computer-savvy mom send you a 100MB picture via email? Stick some more coins in.
Metered cell phone use is something entirely within your knowledge and control. Metered bandwidth, on the other hand, is neither. | |
| |
|
|
·