posted
Several stories have appeared over the past few weeks (including one in last Thursday's Wall St. Journal) over the plans some Internet Service Providers (and remember that quite a few ISPs these days are 'phone' and 'cable' companies) are developing to charge consumers based on how much bandwidth they use.
On the surface this seems like a great idea to me. The current model is that you pay a flat rate fee for whatever speed (dial up, 256 kb/sec, etc.) your connection is.
I don't do much downloading -- not any really. So I hate having to pay what I pay for DSL just because there are download hogs out there.
The IPSs claim that 1% of their customers use 40% of the bandwidth. On a basic fairness level, this idea seems quite appealing. After all, pricing for server space is generally based on how much bandwidth a site uses.
However, there are some problems with a tiered pricing model.
Of course, there is some question whether it really will lead to significantly lower prices. That's a consideration. I think flat rates are more transparent (paradoxically) for the consumer. You know what the costs are going to be.
But more importantly, it punishes content providers. Not that I'm going to shed tears over Yahoo! or iTunes. But if you are paying for extra bandwidth, you might not be so quick to go after that 48 mb file (or whatever).
Although I don't mind the the idea of those users who are downloading stuff nonstop off BitTorrent paying more, I am interested in seeing models for paid but low-cost, quality content continue to develop and be successful. This adds an extra disincentive to the mix.
But perhaps the cost of a song or movie download should take into account the amount of bandwidth it will require. Of course, that's not how the pricing model will go. Consumers will have to figure it out for themselves.
Anyway. Intuitevely it sounds like a good idea, but I just don't trust the ISPs.
What do you all think? What type of plan would be fair?
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morons are being deceptive as usual. Most of that high bandwidth usage is because LOTS of low bandwidth users request LOTS of info from a lesser number of popular content providers. eg Less commercial sites like Sinbad and this forum would hafta close down under their proposal. WE already pay for ALL of the bandwidth. The major ISPs are just tryin' to bill US twice and thrice.
Why would less commercial site have to close down? Don't those who publish *already* pay for bandwidth? How would this affect them?
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice that ya don't see the major ISPs suggesting that since ALL of the bandwidth is already paid for, their extra charges to the high-bandwidth content providers should be rebated back to charging US less in monthly fees.
Basicly, they are trying to use their government-granted effective monopolies to extort money out of popular sites like Google. And if Google hasta pay extra to the major ISPs, we are gonna hafta pay Google to make up the difference.
Besides, if ISPs monitor usage, then they become legally liable for content. Which means that the ISPs are gonna hafta engage in a LOT of censorship (most of it wrongful) in pre-emptive lawsuit prevention.
There have been lots of talk about how there's all this competition because cable companies and telephone companies and traditional ISPs are now competing for the same space.
But what with all the mergers and exclusive municipal contracts, etc. I don't buy it.
As one consumer advocate put it (can't remember where) -- so now there are two choices instead of one.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It goes like this... The largest fraction of the costs associated with setting up the Internet are fixed: eg if it costs $100million to lay in the trunk lines within a city for access, $100million must be recovered in fees, regardless of whether there are two end-users or a million. Since finding two customers willing to fork over $50million is difficult, it is desirable to spread that cost over a million customers.
The second largest cost is in wiring in individual customers. And there is only a marginal cost difference in laying down a low-bandwidth trunk-access line and laying down a high-bandwidth trunk-access line. ie* It only costs 10times as much to lay in 100times more bandwidth, 100times more money to lay in 10,000times more bandwidth.
Right now, content providers are paying that 10to100times extra in keeping with the cost of laying in the trunk-access lines. Under the major ISPs' proposal, content providers would be forced to pay the 100to10,000times extra reflecting bandwidth usage. Which means that small sites like Sinbad, this forum, NinePlanets, blogs, etc would hafta come up with 100times more to stay online instead of their current 10times more than the typical home user. And that money hasta come from somewhere.
I doubt that eg OSC would be willing to spend a large fraction of his total income -- or go into debt -- to let us continue playing in his forums. So either the sites start charging user fees, go out of business, somehow become more commercial, or sell out to LARGE commercial content providers: who will have to start charging subscriber fees if the major ISPs' proposal is allowed to go through.
* The numbers I'm using are wrong. But they are useful in describing the type of relationship between bandwidth and trunk-access.
posted
Will it really hit the Big Boys? I mean, does Yahoo even use an ISP? You'd think that a company that size, providing content to the degree they do, would do whatever is necessary to essentially become their own ISP, owning their own internet connections rather than leasing one from a retail ISP like the rest of us.
I'd think the same would hold true for MSN, Ebay, Google, etc. Now a major company whose primary business isn't web-based like The Washington Post might find it more economical to pay an ISP than to set one up for themselves, but surely that can't be true for the Mega-providers who don't really have any part of their business that isn't web based.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ad-blocking browser plugins would suddenly become a money-saving measure. Complex sites would see usage drops. Some people might even switch back to a (gasp) text-based browser.
No, this is a terrible idea. A lot of broadband providers already offer tiered service anyway, so high-bandwidth users pay extra for the fastest service.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming you have some decent competition between companies, internet prices can definitely go lower. Here in my part of Kansas City, there's only one provider, Time Warner. They know it. And I pay for it.
Over in Lenexa (and some other areas), they compete directly with a smaller company called Everest. I have heard, directly from Everest customers, that Time Warner actually tried to negotiate on prices.
If we had more competition between these major ISPs our prices would be lower. The companies also wouldn't be trying to pull stunts like these.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Although I don't mind the the idea of those users who are downloading stuff nonstop off BitTorrent paying more
Now why do you say that? They're already paying for their high speed line. It's not like they're hoggin your bandwidth, they can only use as much as their line and modem allow. And they payed for that, just as you payed for yours.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he is assuming, and wrongly, that BitTorrent users are only downloading copyrighted stuff.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
