KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to EPS
Re: I don't get it!
I disagree. They pay for their consumption, so if I connect to say YouTube and watch a ton of videos that means Google has to pay their providers for the bandwidth I consumed.
Which is part of the reason charge by the byte is a pure rip-off for consumers. They want to follow the Cell phone model--- make people pay for both MAKING the call and RECEIVING the call---- IE pay twice. Hell if Net Neutrality fails that could become paying THREE, FOUR, or even more times.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to EPS
I disagree. I think there is very little actual competition in most markets, and what there seems to be decently addressed with speed increases (why would they want to lower speeds?). Their model works fine as they continue to over-subscribe their connections anyway.
This is all just looking to make more profit, which is fine, but their attempted reasoning is fallacious.
KM |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| reply to sousademiami
The big problem is the "I pay for mine" section- ISPs realize that their payment model is based on an internet connection not always used and for text and pictures, not things like Flash and video.
The problem is that the existing competition makes significantly raising prices or lowering speeds to what can be offered more realistically very difficult, which is what competition is supposed to do. They therefore looked at the website owners as easier targets, as well as things like caps, where they can still advertise higher speeds but make sure the people aren't using them too much. |
|
