bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs: | Good.
Maybe when mommy and daddy actually have to pay for juniors file stealing, it'll slow down. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by bent  :Maybe when mommy and daddy actually have to pay for juniors file stealing, it'll slow down. That is the dumbest quote EVER. Are you just trying to troll ?
That is a blanket statement that doesn't cover a majority of the industry.
Video on demand sites like netflix , will be killed by this move , Directv on demand will be killed , streaming music will be killed. Helping the linux community will be killed youtube , myspace , flickr , sectionz , hitz , even AOL.
Do you think before you speak ? It's not all theft like you and your ilk like to forecast.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
·Metrocast Communic..
 ·AT&T DSL Service
·ViaTalk
| reply to bent
said by bent :Maybe when mommy and daddy actually have to pay for juniors file stealing, it'll slow down. Please. Try using VoIP, a Wii, Xbox Live, maybe download a few movies via the Xbox and Netflix, 3 computers and an ITouch on a network downloading from iTunes. We don't do anything illegal like you state, and we burn through quite a bit of bandwidth per month, sometimes close to 60 gigs or more.
So we are not file stealing as you put it and use alot of bandwidth. That is becoming the norm as more and more products are connected to the internet.
So are you going to tell us to stop also?
--
"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
EchoD
Moon Dust High
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Jamestown, NY
 ·lunarpages
| reply to bent
Certainly. But what of legitimate large file transfers? Purchased music and video, purchased software downloads, open source software, and streaming media?
This seems more about milking the customer than slowing piracy.
--
Everyone wants to go to the Moon. The idiots want to eat the cheese, but the rest of us just want to snort the Moon Dust. |
|
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs: | reply to ptrowski
I suppose you'd also like a bottomless tank of gas for your SUV for one flat price every month? |
|
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Reasonably structured per byte billing is better than...
low caps and overages.
I understand that people don't really like the idea of per-byte billing because they like a predictable monthly charge.
Low caps with overages soak low consumption users, remove the certainty of flat rate and deprive people of most of their ability to control costs by controlling consumption. It's a bad deal for customers all around. Per-byte removes certainty but it allows people more control over their costs and it doesn't gouge low use.
I'm still not convinced that present flat rate is destroying profitability or that such a model is unsustainable. I think this dire talk is a short term problem being exploited to try to rationalize application discrimination and QOS to undermine services competition. |
|
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to BosstonesOwn
Re: Good.
Stating an unpopular opinion isn't trolling, it's opening up discussion.
The vast majority of internet users aren't anywhere near 50 or 60 gigs a month, much less the 100 gigs in a month that might get you in dutch with your ISP currently. Maybe those that are in those upper reaches of data consumption should pay a premium?
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau |
|
Luker3
join:2004-10-09
Blacksburg, VA | reply to bent
YES! I do want a flat rate for gas! Then I could drive all day non-stop. |
|
fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | reply to bent
You waste a lot of bandwidth delivering non sequiturs and baseless trolling. You must be one of those neo-Luddite's who think the internet should only be for your personal email and browsing static web pages. Sorry, but it isn't 1994 anymore. |
|
Frank
is chilling
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to bent
said by bent :I suppose you'd also like a bottomless tank of gas for your SUV for one flat price every month? gasoline is an exhaustible resource just like electricity. internet and media is not. you dont see the cable company billing you based upon how many hours your cablebox was turned on do you?
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida  |
|
Frank
is chilling
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to bent
Re: Good.
said by bent :Stating an unpopular opinion isn't trolling, it's opening up discussion. The vast majority of internet users aren't anywhere near 50 or 60 gigs a month, much less the 100 gigs in a month that might get you in dutch with your ISP currently. Maybe those that are in those upper reaches of data consumption should pay a premium? in 1996 the vast majority of internet users paid for internet access by the hour and used dialup connections. Any overusage meant you had to pay really expensive fees. The entire reason this stopped was because of competition, most companies which did not adopt the 'unlimited usage' model went out of business. To me this is a step backwards and I forsee many more isps stupid enough to implement this going out of business.
This may work in canada because bell canada practically has in my opinion what I would consider a monopoly but i'm pretty sure that there are marketing teams for various isps in the US that are just salivating at the type of commercials they can run against the first major isp in the u.s. to be stupid enough to try this.
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida |
|
AZ_OGM
join:2007-01-12
Phoenix, AZ | If they can bill by the byte...
Why not also institute rollover bytes similar to what AT&T does with wireless minutes. That way you can always stockpile them so you can be ready for the next service pack Microsoft rolls out. |
|
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| What we really need...
...is reliable QoS, ideally for the Internet as a whole.
That way, critical real-time applications like VoIP can get the top priority (thus enhancing the utility of VoIP providers other than ISPs), applications where real-time is preferable, but not critical, like online gaming and web browsing can go to the next tier, and applications that generally run in the background and/or on an unattended computer, like P2P and FTP can get the lowest priority.
Of course, this relies on P2P applications (and everyone else) playing fair and not trying to bump up the priority of their transfers. It also relies on their being sufficient capacity to allow P2P to work reasonably well most of the time.
Given the rather questionable ethics and morality in some parts of the P2P community, I'm not sure they could be relied on to allow this to work. But perhaps something like this will be the basis for the rapprochement between BitTorrent and Comcast.
On the other hand, this sounds an awful lot like what Comcast was originally trying to do (at least according to them). The idea may not be salvageable, even with BT's cooperation, especially given Comcast's penchant for secrecy and duplicity and their shoot-yourself-in-the-foot style of PR.
And I'm sure some of the net neutrality folks would have objections to the whole idea of privileging certain types of data over others even if it were done in an open, above-board and nondiscriminatory (to different providers or types of content) way.
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to bent
Re: Good.
If Exxon advertised an plan that offered unlimited gas for a low monthly rate and I paid the rate, I would expect unlimited gas. I wouldn't expect Exxon to suddenly charge me more because I had used too many gallons in a particular month. (Especially if "too many gallons" wasn't defined anywhere and if I wasn't given any way of telling how close I was to "too many gallons.") |
|
MemphisPCGuy
Senior Systems Engineer
Premium
join:2004-05-09
Memphis, TN
·Comcast
| I will switch to the company that implements this last
I will certainly switch to the company that implements unreasonably low caps and overages last. I am currently paying Comcast $172.00 month for digital phone, 8Mb Tubes and HDTV. If they aren't making enough money out of that I will just need to peice meal my digital lifestyle and the lowest bidder gets the money.
--
»www.memphispcguy.com |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to Frank
Re: Good.
said by Frank :said by bent :Stating an unpopular opinion isn't trolling, it's opening up discussion. The vast majority of internet users aren't anywhere near 50 or 60 gigs a month, much less the 100 gigs in a month that might get you in dutch with your ISP currently. Maybe those that are in those upper reaches of data consumption should pay a premium? in 1996 the vast majority of internet users paid for internet access by the hour and used dialup connections. Any overusage meant you had to pay really expensive fees. The entire reason this stopped was because of competition, most companies which did not adopt the 'unlimited usage' model went out of business. To me this is a step backwards and I forsee many more isps stupid enough to implement this going out of business. This may work in canada because bell canada practically has in my opinion what I would consider a monopoly but i'm pretty sure that there are marketing teams for various isps in the US that are just salivating at the type of commercials they can run against the first major isp in the u.s. to be stupid enough to try this. There is one major difference between the 1996 situation and today. IN 1996, you could move to a new dial-up ISP. Today, you can NOT move to a new Cable ISP since you are in a Take-It-or-Leave-It situation due to there being only one Cable Company per area. If you are lucky enough to have a AT&T U-whatever-it-is-called or Verizon FIOS option you can switch to them (assuming that they do not try this stunt also) or downgrade to whatever speed of DSL your local Telco offers but that is your only other options except to just drop Internet Access or pay the blackmail fees to your Cable Company. |
|
elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30
Toronto, ON | reply to AZ_OGM
Re: If they can bill by the byte...
They don't roll-over minutes here either |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to Corydon
Re: What we really need...
said by Corydon :...is reliable QoS, ideally for the Internet as a whole. End-to-end QoS (where the two end points are NOT on the same network) is not possible UNTIL IPv6 is rolled out and the session is being serviced via IPv6 not the current IPv4. Any QoS for a IPv4 session can only be done so long as the session stays on your ISP's network. Only IPv6 has the capability to handle end-to-end QoS. |
|
