RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| Why?
Maybe in the future, but given the current byte driven internet costs (and yes, even the "all you can eat" has a cost per byte at some point in the chain), it does not make much sense.
Of course, the potential for view on demand instead of 'it starts at 2PM EST or 3PM PST' is much nicer. Someday it might be common and people can not figure out how they ever survived without it (I dumped my cable and went back to the antenna, so you can see what I think of it.)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by RayW  :Maybe in the future, but given the current byte driven internet costs (and yes, even the "all you can eat" has a cost per byte at some point in the chain), it does not make much sense. If this download service gains traction, look for monthly byte caps or cost structures to charge over certain amount of bytes/month.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to RayW
maybe its time for the data market to change and adapt to what we the consumers use it for rather then old out dated business models.
we shouldnt hold back new methods of usage because the trunk providers are still using data business models from the 1980s.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to RayW
I have a 3.0M down connection and I can watch streaming video with no problem. High-quality, TV-like, video usually needs to be downloaded first.
I think we are at a point where offering video over IP is viable. It's nowhere near maturity, but getting the ball rolling now will help that maturity come sooner rather than later. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to TKJunkMail
You've been saying this for years.
We've already been over how any company who switched to a bill by the byte model would be at an immediate marketing disadvantage. The only way the industry could shift to that model is en masse, and that's not happening. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :look for monthly byte caps or cost structures to charge over certain amount of bytes/month. My ISP has a byte cap already, helps keep my costs down since I am not a heavy user. 100 gigabytes per 4 weeks metered Monday - Friday, from 7 a.m. to midnight, much more than I use even running a weather station and web page and doing Microsoft 'feature' fixes.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to TKJunkMail
Maybe in your neocon fantasy world, yes, the providers could charge 'by the byte'. But this is the REAL world, and people are buying a PIPE to the internet, they aren't buying bytes. You obviously don't see the point. My ISP limits my byte transfers based on the SIZE of the pipe. I have a 10/10 connection for 35.00/month. In theory, I could use 6TB of data transfer per month. That's because I PAID FOR a PIPE that can move data at 10mb/sec. Much to your dismay, I don't pay by the byte, because that's not what internet acess is!. Sure, in your megacorp fantasy world, the ISP could charge you 3 times every time you load a web page (base 65.00, + Charge google + charge me by the byte). But that's just a wet dream for you.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| said by karlmarx :Maybe in your neocon fantasy world, yes, the providers could charge 'by the byte'. I didn't know that broadband pricing plans was part of the neocon movement. |
|
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
1 edit | reply to karlmarx
You pay for a pipe but there is this thing called a TOS. I'm sure somewhere in your TOS it states that if you effect the network in a negative way, you will either be disconnected, be throttled or charged extra. So yeah, you can do your 6TB of data movement until you negativly impact the network, then you are either gone or paying more. I'm sure that in your liberal, everything should be free world Karlmarx that this would never happen, but welcome to the real world where you pay to be on SOMEONE ELSES network where THEY get to make the rules since THEY own it. I know that you think making money is evil but again, welcome to the real world Karlmarx. Yes its unlikely that ISP's will start a new pricing structure but in thoery they could, even if you dont like it...because its thier network and business. If you dont like it, you can either take your business elsewhere or start up your own network. Point is, just cause you dont like it and people are going to make money doesnt make it evil. Remember, internet access is a utility, not a right. |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
While I don't think you'll see widespead $.xx/MB pricing, I do think you may see more monthly caps like Cox HSI has where you end up paying more to get to the next tier. And rather than the tiers being all about speed, you also see more about upgrading to higher monthly caps.
Since these last mile providers are fairly isolated from competition in their individual markets, you don't have to have an en masse shift. I've had Cox since 1997 (one of the first digital cable/cable BB deployments in the US) and still, 10 years later, my particular neighborhood which is very upscale we doesn't have anything that can compete with them (no WISP, no DSL). In other nearby areas Cox a near-lock on content delivery...Ladera Ranch for example includes Cox HSI in their HOA fees so you have Cox HSI whether you want it or not so even if there is a competitior, people are less likely to use them.
I don't think this is an isolated case. Where cable sees competition from fiber we'll see these restrictions relaxed but in areas like mine I think we'll see providers clamping down and charging more fees if HSI use on a per sub basis increases. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| I agree. Until we have national 3-way or more competition the viability of signing up for high-bandwidth technologies, such as video over IP, will not be able to mature. Competition will bring the prices down, and the available bandwidth up. Until then we can just sit around and day-dream of turning Japanese. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :Maybe in your neocon fantasy world, yes, the providers could charge 'by the byte'. But this is the REAL world, and people are buying a PIPE to the internet, they aren't buying bytes. I guess you have never heard of a cell phone then KarlMarx. Its this little device that fits in your pocket, and it even has internet access! People can chose to pay for a capped plan or pay by the byte. I know that only us Neocons use cell phones these days, but hey, welcome to OUR world. Most countries other than the US only allow for pay by byte cellular internet access. My prediction will be that ISP's will start (either by being forced or otherwise) to clearly label their caps in the near future (within 24 months). They will then be able to say "if you go over X then there is a charge of X per byte". Alternatively, I wouldnt be surprised if they offered a "super budget" plan that included no usage per month (but was very cheap) and the consumer simply paid for all their traffic by the byte. For what its worth, this model is already in place in some European countries.
--
я люблю медведей! |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to squid7
quote:
While I don't think you'll see widespead $.xx/MB pricing, I do think you may see more monthly caps like Cox HSI has where you end up paying more to get to the next tier. And rather than the tiers being all about speed, you also see more about upgrading to higher monthly caps.
Yes, I have no doubt there will be caps, tiers, throttled apps, etc. There already is. All manner of slight of hand and fine print. Absolutely.
What TCM proposes is flat billing by the byte, where you use exactly how much bandwidth you use, just like an electric utility. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by Karl Bode :What TCM TCH proposes is flat billing by the byte, where you use exactly how much bandwidth you use, just like an electric utility. That is not what I said. This is:
monthly byte caps or cost structures to charge over certain amount of bytes/month
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | Well then you're changing your position from the last fifty times you've argued in our comment section that users should be billed by the byte.
»Bring on the "charge by byte" model
»Per Byte model will happen if net neutrality laws passed
»Sounds like LR editor advocating per byte bb
»ISP's will switch to byte caps if they can't shape torrents
»The case for usage based billing
There's about sixty more of these from you over the last month.
I keep wondering: do you push this simply because you think it's really a good idea, or for some other reason? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | said by Karl Bode :Well then you're changing your position from the last fifty times you've argued in our comment section that users should be billed by the byte. You can go back and check if you want, but most posts will show pay per byte over a base included tier.
»Sounds like LR editor advocating per byte bb
As for me I have no problem with tiers based on bandwidth consumed instead of speeds. »ISP's will switch to byte caps if they can't shape torrents
caps on traffic(uploads especially for cable companies). And onerous fees for going over the caps. »The case for usage based billing
Nothing in there precludes per byte after cap. Just general usage billing.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | I did, actually. And only the last two posts you've made advocate per-byte billing over a tier limit. You apparently forged this conclusion after people repeatedly told you general per-byte billion would not work, TKJunkmail. |
|
hyzmarca
@Level3.net
| reply to RayW
Total throughput has never been the problem. In a packet-switched network it is quite possible for every user to max out their throughput without adversely effecting the network.
The problem has always been timing. If 100 people try to access google at the same time then their throughput will be divided 100 ways and the network will be 100 times slower. If 99 people access google and 1 person downloads a video at the same time then you've got the same problem. Neither the size of the files nor the amount of allocated bandwidth matters, really. What matters is the timing.
It just so happens that placing throughput caps during peak usage hours may reduce total usage time which may reduce network congestion. However, this is a roundabout way to accomplish what it really required to keep an oversold network running smoothly, controlling the timing of packet that pass through the network.
A pay-per-byte model isn't the solution for this nor is tiered service plans, packet shaping based on protocol, or discriminatory billing. The solution point-to-point timing negotiation based on IP addresses so that every user has equal and full access to the network. This is technically difficult, but but quite possible and, if done correctly, will be transparent to the end user. By manipulating timing one might increase overall latency by a few milliseconds but would still allow every user full and equal throughput up to a point. If there are too many users even this option fails, of course. |
|
