Pay-As-You-Go Internet In The Works Say ISPs

[xaira]

i use 100%of my bandwidth like 24/7 for this month already ive used over 50gb, this aint gon work unless its like 10 cents a gig

 

[rodney_ws]

The problem is that the content providers (NBC, HBO, Viacom, etc) in many cases are also the service providers (Mediacom, Comcast, etc) and unlimited access virtually eliminates the need for their core offerings (pay TV)

I really hope one company (PLEASE let it be Verizon!) will continue to offer unlimited bandwidth and the other companies will be punished accordingly by customers.

This IS a VERY important topic and one that effects us all.

 

[leon2006]

Plain greed from service providers...

 

[Guest]

Anyway, not to pour salt into any wounds but every rented apartment owned by the city comes with free 10Mbit here and you can get a 100Mbit upgrade with static IPs for ~$12 a month.

And no, they didn't up the rent when that service was introduced either.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]RCraig57[/nom]Another example of government placing their noses where it does not belong. Let the free market decide and let the consumers decide the best course of action for themselves. Competition in the market is healthy.[/citation]
It's nice in theory, except that A) the government already footed the bill for A LOT of the network building, and B) in many places there isn't a "free market" for competitive pricing. Free markets tend to work best when there's viable competition in a market.

 

[ElectroGoofy]

Pay-as-you go would be fine with me.... as long as it is something like $1 for 1tb of downloads

 

[dannyaa]

This is a load of crap. When ISPs say "it's not fair, people who don't use it as much shouldn't be the same" - sure, sounds great! Charge them LESS, not other users more.

 

[eddieroolz]

We never see arguments like this in asia where fiber-optics has penetrated everywhere. Seoul has fiber-optics running citywide and provides 100Mbps internet to almost everyone. Japan has a nationwide fiber optic service and they regularly get speeds of above 50Mbps with very high limits or no limit at all.

Only in NA we hear ISPs bitching and whining like this. If you can't support the traffic, then upgrade it, or get out of the business.

 

[mustwarnothers]

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]It's nice in theory, except that A) the government already footed the bill for A LOT of the network building, and B) in many places there isn't a "free market" for competitive pricing. Free markets tend to work best when there's viable competition in a market.[/citation]

Yup

Let's also not forget that the problem with the government interfering is that the Government (as proven by our massive spending and debt) has absolutely no problem operating at a loss, bleeding out funds.

I hate the direction that Capitalism is taking these corporate empires, but once the government takes a hold of service like ISP's, they'd essentially smother any possible competition.

I'm for a free market, I'm just not for a free market where the major players dictate the rules.

 

[Guest]

To those who call for net neutrality, that will only result in the cost of services going up and will probably do very little of what it intends to. Those kind of programs like "Patriot Act" that have feel good names, usually do the opposite of what they are intended to do.

To those who point to Japan or South Korea and say why not us, the reason they have high broadband speeds is due to their population density, it requires much less fiber/copper/man power to reach people who want information.

I vote with my money. When they come up with a faster speed, I give them more money, if a competitor comes out with a faster speed for less money I buy that instead.

They already have you paying $50 a month, and they have a faster speed available but you don't upgrade. Since you won't upgrade, and there is really no competition they don't feel any pressure to increase the speeds.

 

[FoShizzleDizzle]

[citation][nom]truehighroller[/nom]Time Warner Cable just upped my service about $20 dollars a month. They were the ones trying to make caps for everyone and all hell broke lose. Now I guess this is their way of getting the money that they wanted.[/citation]

The problem is they get the money they 'wanted', and they don't even bother reinvesting it into their own infrastructure. They just look at it as a way to still give everyone a 10% raise.

 

[kittle]

Bandwidth caps are definately a bad idea.

But I think metered bandwidth would be a good idea. If grandma only uses 2mb a month for email, then thats all she should pay for. But if mr. technoGeek wants to stream HD video and consume 250GB a month in downloads - then he should also pay accordingly. But dont go charging Grandma for somebody else's downloading habits.

 

[mikepaul]

Too many people posting "I dropped my basic cable and just watch Hulu", so the cable companies plan to FIX that. If someone stands in the way of that, they'll be called Un-American. Meanwhile, I think back to the days of REALLY unlimited Internet and the lack of ways to use it...

 

[Supertrek32]

Many people have examined the revenue/profit/expenses/etc of major ISPs and I've yet to see anyone show ANY proof of these claims. Despite "major renovations" to their infrastructure, their profits are ever-increasing. Yeah, looks like they're having tons of issues keeping up with increased demand... Profiteering gluttons.

Maybe I wouldn't be so upset if I new they'd be fair with their prices, but history shows they won't be. If history can be our guide, they'll want $1+ per gigabyte. Ridiculous.

A fair pricing scheme would be $15 upkeep with $0.25/GB. That's $40 for 100GB, which is your average usage/cost.

They'll probably charge $20 upkeep and $1/GB, tripling the money.

 

[Acert93]

@ RCraign57 -- Sure, the government will butt out the moment they return all their tax payer monies for services they failed to render on budget and on time. Why isn't the FCC and Congress grilling them on this I do not know...

 

[Guest]

Those complaining about the dated US infrastructure needs to take into consideration the difference in land mass between the US, Japan, and South Korea. It's cheaper to update the infrastructure when you only have 1/100th the area to cover.

US 3,794,083 sq mi (9,826,675 sq km)
Japan 152,411 sq mi (394,744 sq km)
South Korea 37,911 sq mi (98,189 sq km)

 

[Bruceification73]

[citation][nom]MustWarnOthers[/nom]Let's also not forget that the problem with the government interfering is that the Government (as proven by our massive spending and debt) has absolutely no problem operating at a loss, bleeding out funds.[/citation]

Not only do they not have a problem with losing money, they seem to love it. No government-operated business has ever earned more than they spent.

I'm for a free market, I'm just not for a free market where the major players dictate the rules.

Well said.

 

[ArgleBargle]

If the ISP's start nickel-and-diming everyone, I want ALL spam and advertising BLOCKED before it counts against my quota.

 

[rage machine]

Bandwidth metering and bandwidth caps are not a reality. Honestly is just ridiculous to begin doing them. If they keep lowering bandwidth it'll only make it easier for local internet service providers to steal back customers because they can actually carry the amount of customers with no limitations. Besides, they are already charging ridiculous prices.

Seriously, they are imposing a shortage There is plenty of bandwidth available they are just not wanting to spend the money keeping their servers up with demand.

 

[1ce]

Ok, I realize there are problems with the infrastructure being out of date.....not as fast as Japan, Korea...

Did anyone making these accusations take a look at the tiny size, and much higher population density, in Japan and Korea? It makes a big difference. I'm not saying it's ok that consumers get ripped off...but at the same time the ISP's need to make a profit and it's considerably more difficult to deliver the same internet service in continental North America as it is in Japan.