Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by Audioman321, Jun 17, 2008.
I have just read the news:Charging by the Byte to Curb Internet Traffic
That's make me sick...
Total money grab by these companies. As the person from Cisco said, “today’s ‘bandwidth hog’ is tomorrow’s average user.”....They're just prepping for the future to justify higher prices for all.
You don't buy broadband to check your email and hit up a couple favorite websites. If you're paying for 2 MB download speeds, you should have a rightful expectation that you can use that bandwidth.
I work for a telecom company, and yes, this is coming. They figure that there's 10% of customers that use 90% of the bandwidth. I guess for people who aren't heavy users, this is preferable to having rates go up across the board. I'm not a huge bandwidth user myself, (I don't think) but I would like to know more about what the limits will be. I personally don't want to have to worry if I am exceeding. I have a cell phone plan where I probably only use 10% of my available minutes a month, but I keep just for the peace of mind of knowing I will never go over my plan.
I guess it's hard to argue with it in principle. Everything else we consume is pretty much charged by the amount used...gas, electric, phone, water, etc. Why not bandwidth?
> Why not bandwidth?
Uh, because the price of bandwidth has been dropping like a rock, for one.
And of course we pay for cable TV by the hour.
When there is so much bandwidth that high bandwidth usage doesn't place any strain on the system, then perhaps that'll be a good argument against charging by the byte. Until then, I want fees unbundled: I want the service providers to charge the lowest possible base price, and then have everyone pay incrementally more based on how much they actually use the service. That way, I don't pay one penny more than I personally need to. Anything that costs them more to provide they should charge extra for, so I don't have to subsidize anyone else's special or excessive usage, and so I am only charged for what I personally use.
Charging by the bit will kill off services such as online Netfilx and Apple TV and will certainly curb the use of graphics on sites such as this one. After all how many will pay for pretty pictures when they can just read the text?
I'm a FIOS user and not only did I get a rate increase notice, but I also got a note saying that they were going to cut out all USENET groups that were not in the 'BIG 8'...
That leaves out the alt.* stuff which is loaded with binary images and I assume uses a bunch of bandwidth.
I guess I dont' know how much I use. I download a few songs, play a few PS3 games online. No idea how much this "uses" or how much more it would cost me a month. I don't download HD movies online, or run Bit torrent full time. I think it's kind of silly personally. If you don't use a lot of bandwith, pay for DSL at 19 bucks a month. If you are spending $60 a month for cable, then they charge you when you use it? No thanks.
If this policy is implemented by only some providers, the ones that don't will pick up a lot of customers. Also, I'd ask if this means that the base price will be cut for "light" users.
They didn't shut it down because of bandwidth usage. The NY Atty General was threatening legal action because a survey of the alt.binaries groups found child porn in 8 of the alt newsgroups (only 8? seems low). Verizon and some others have just opted not to deal with the legal issues by turning off access through their service to the thousands of other alt groups (which generally have copyright issues of their own).
This will likely have zero effect on the targetted problem, since it's just as easy to post illegal content to a newsgroup with a different name or switch to a USENET server outside of your ISP - but at least some lawyers made money and wielded the power of attorney.
My bandwidth usage has gone up recently because I've been watching more video podcasts through my PC and through my TiVo. If I were to add a movie streaming service in the near future then that might put me into some heavy user category. I do wonder how Comcast would differentiate the bits for me downloading content from Amazon vs me downloading bits from Comcast On-Demand. Who am I kidding? They wouldn't care - mo money either way!
This could be the opportunity the content providers have been looking for to deter piracy. If one can find a song/movie to download for "free," he might think twice if it costs more in bandwidth charges.
That's one of the reasons why charging by the byte is the way to go: Otherwise, broadband services end up having to carry the heavy weight of the cost of services that actually compete with them. That would be patently unfair. The only fair way to achieve net neutrality is to effect charging by byte.
I read that some service providers have recently decided to do this because some of those other realms provide child pornography.
The cost for cable has nothing to do with the cost for high-speed Internet; they're two different services.
I meant cable modem, forgot to include that.
I've heard that too, but it sounds like a bunch of B.S. to me. Kind of like treating a hang nail by amputating.
This is just the thin edge of the wedge. If this practice becomes common, the companies will start lowering the thresholds at which the extra charges take place. First the "bandwidth hogs" then eventually the "average user" will see their internet bills skyrocket with usage charges.
I'll help free up telcom companies bandwidth by canceling my service if this practice becomes common. I've done it with my television service and I can do it with internet service. I'm getting sick and tired of these companies and their attitude that we serve them, instead of them serving us.
Internet service, like satellite and cable TV, is a luxury.....not a necessity. I can survive without any of these services. How long can Telcom and TV companies survive if people finally wake up and start canceling their subscriptions en mass?
That's what I was thinking. I'd love to be the last provider not charging by the byte because they'll have tons of money from all their new subscribers.