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

[xxsk8er101xx]

There is no proof whatsoever that the current demand is costing the ISP money. Or, that the increase in demand will cost the ISP money. There is no proof none. What is being done is being done due to the economy and exploiting an old outdated idea and pushing it onto the consumer thinking they'll just take it or else. Why? They think we're addicted to the internet and we'll pay the higher prices.

I recommend you don't give into this and just drop your ISP.

You're wrong about the usage. A lot of people rent movies by using the on-demand or stream it thru netflix. You'll run up the cap in 5 days. Especially with the size of the websites today.

What about gamers that have to download patches? How about windows updates? service packs? (dam i can't use the internet anymore because I have to download a service pack)

It's insane if anyone thinks this will fly with the American public.

[citation][nom]supertrek32[/nom]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.[/citation]
[citation][nom]foo_bar_baz_w00t[/nom]While I think that bandwidth metering is a bad idea, I would point out that it would probably greatly reduce the number of pwned zombies out there - all the sudden, the unsecured Windows box that's sending 10,000 spam emails a day is a financial problem for the owner...OTOH, if the telcos try this, they may find out just why Google bought all the dark fiber a few years back.[/citation]

 

[Guest]

well lets just say that this will revert thousands from using internet period.

 

[millerm84]

Both Charter and TWC (and I assume every major ISP) runs adds talking about their fabulous fiber networks. Then talk about how they just can't support all this traffic. As consumers in a free market society WE are supposed to control the market, not these bastards.

So if they go to this crap I saw we bust out the chain saws and bolt cutters grab our real/proverbial cojones and take home our own little piece of capitalism.

or just boycott like our forefathers wanted us to do.

 

[Gariusb]

Why not just buy out the infrastructure from the telecoms and then hire them to just maintain it. That is what a lot of townships are doing. Saving that we could set up wireless mesh networks using something like olsr or any open source protocols. Then we use long haul technologies like RF, laser with packet sequencing (e.g. OFDM)like whats used in WiMAX. If we can offer content providers on the internet (e.g. websites, internet radio, P2P servers, IM servers) better bandwidth options than the ISP's that would be an example of free market. check: http://www.olsr.org/?q=about and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_Network. But there is the issue of guaranteed service.

From a politicians perspective a lobbyist looks like the public, but the should be smarter than that.

Everyone keeps on talking about the government this and the government that, but we are the government. Maybe not in a democratic sense, but definitely as a Republic.

 

[Gariusb]

[citation][nom]Gariusb[/nom]check: and .[/citation] That's weird there were supposed to be 2 links included. Here goes attempt #2. hxxp/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_Network and hxxp/www.olsr.org/?q=about

 

[Atticah]

I pay 20$ a month for 1mb connection
it works fine i love it
Time Warner

 

[millerm84]

after giving it thought our forefathers donned headdresses, loinclothes, and war paint grabbed their cojones bum rushed a merchant vessel and dumped it's cargo (lets just call it broadband packages) into the Boston harbour.

"Sorry officer I was inspired to cut down that pole because Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were bad asses."

 

[Guest]

If they metered i would go ok fine, drop cable and leave the internet as i'll go to dish. we have every option time warner offers and if they would rather make a few additional bucks by being assholes with the internet($35) they would lose much more money we pay them for cable (~$150). i'm sure we are in the majority in that we could easily go without tv but internet is not an option.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]MustWarnOthers[/nom]Yup

Let's also not forget that the problem with the government interfering...[/citation]
You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not saying government interference would wreck the "free market," I'm saying that even right now, without it, there isn't a free market in many places, especially rurally. I'm also saying that since the government already paid for a lot of the work that went into establishing these huge networks and protocols, there should be some government say-so in how ISPs can operate, and specifically network neutrality so that ISPs can't disable/cripple VOIP or Hulu on their networks so that you'll use their in-house services. Keep the uses of the internet non-discriminatory. And if the internet really has become a new utility like elecricity and water, there should be some government oversight.

Some people have mentioned that several countries with better internetz have higher population densities so they're easier to wire up. This isn't the whole story. Other factors might include the way the US was wired up, basically on top of existing services like phone lines and TV cable that were optimized for a different job; namely telephoning and sending premium movies/shows, not web surfing. Verizon and AT&T are already rolling out dedicated lines and fiber specifically for internettery, but this is almost a token effort in the US compared to other countries. The fact is that the US network is slow, expensive, underbuilt, underserved, and despite what some people might say I don't think that's going to get fixed by sprinkling magical "Capitalism" dust on it: that is in fact pretty much how we got here in the first place. Major changes will probably only come about through government action rather than government inaction and that's the way it is. I'm not saying "lets have the government take over the web!" I'm saying we can't fix this by leaving telcos and cable to their own devices and just assuming we can jump to a different ship if we don't like their current service.

 

[Guest]

Just a point about everyone who's b****ing about Japan and Korea having 50-100mps connections everywhere. They also have what, 5% of the land mass to cover as there is in the US, and 10 times the population density? Not to defend the pay-as-you go model.

I'm just waiting for wireless networks to cover the US.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

They make plenty of money already..... and they just hook up the internet and monitor it.

 

[manvanstaal]

We in Soth Africa is doing this from the start of Broadband.
Uncapp account is not a option here. We suck !!!!

 

[anamaniac]

[citation][nom]icepick314[/nom]here's an idea...why not offer pay-as-you-go as another pricing tier on top of the current model???doesn't this make EVERYONE happy?[/citation]
For some people, it'd be great.
Say, my father, he likely uses 2-3 gigabytes a month. Would save him a lot of cash.
For me, however, 100+ gigs a month... I'd have to get a second job...

My ISP says 7.5mbps... over 30 days, that's 2,430,000megabytes(7.5megabitspersecond/8bits*60seconds*60minutes*24hours*30days), or ~2terabytes.
My ISP caps me at 60 gigabytes... Using 100% of my gauranteed speed would get me to 40x my cap...

How about...
We stop fucking around with oldschool copper and put in some fucking glass?
EDDI Japan offers 1Gbps up/down for $60 a month on fiber optic... that's 133x my speed for only 1.5x the cost...
[citation][nom]joeusa85[/nom]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.[/citation]
Yeah, it'll be expensive, no denying that.
However, it's a investment that should last for many years to come. (Because in theory, a single fiber optic thread (which our cables have several of) could transfer all of a severs content in the blink of a eye or less...)
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]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.[/citation]
Capitalism is great in theory, let the market force out the old and support the new. Communism was also great in theory...
I guess neither won in the end...

 

[anamaniac]

[citation][nom]icepick314[/nom]here's an idea...why not offer pay-as-you-go as another pricing tier on top of the current model???doesn't this make EVERYONE happy?[/citation]
For some people, it'd be great.
Say, my father, he likely uses 2-3 gigabytes a month. Would save him a lot of cash.
For me, however, 100+ gigs a month... I'd have to get a second job...

My ISP says 7.5mbps... over 30 days, that's 2,430,000megabytes(7.5megabitspersecond/8bits*60seconds*60minutes*24hours*30days), or ~2terabytes.
My ISP caps me at 60 gigabytes... Using 100% of my gauranteed speed would get me to 40x my cap...

How about...
We stop fucking around with oldschool copper and put in some fucking glass?
EDDI Japan offers 1Gbps up/down for $60 a month on fiber optic... that's 133x my speed for only 1.5x the cost...
[citation][nom]joeusa85[/nom]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.[/citation]
Yeah, it'll be expensive, no denying that.
However, it's a investment that should last for many years to come. (Because in theory, a single fiber optic thread (which our cables have several of) could transfer all of a severs content in the blink of a eye or less...)
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]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.[/citation]
Capitalism is great in theory, let the market force out the old and support the new. Communism was also great in theory...
I guess neither won in the end...

 

[Thor]

Sure ISP want to sell Internet like Fuel.
Very expensive.
And want make billion and billion again.

 

[hillarymakesmecry]

I have no problem with bandwidth throttling. I don't use peer-to-peer pirating crap anyways because I'm not a criminal. Let me keep my $20 a month internet please!

 

[gamerk316]

[citation][nom]brendano257[/nom]Why don't you use the already excessive amount you charge us to...mmmm I don't know...maybe make it better? If you want a good business, you can't just take the profits it yields. You have to pour the profits back into the company to make it stronger and better. Business 101.Try caring for the customer. It goes a long way.[/citation]

That costs money, and with the lack of competition at the local level, theres no incentive to upgrade networks when it will have no benifit on suscription rates.

 

[nelson_nel]

Kids, one day you will learn that telecom companies are some of the greediest at all. You don't see TOO much of it as a home-consumer as business customers get the real bad end of the stick but take a few seconds and think about this:

If bandwidth is really in danger of not meeting demand, how have prices been STEADILY DECLINING? The answer is, quite frankly, that the net neutrality law is so new and an unexplored area of litigation. What that means is the OVERWHELMING power and influence the telecom providers have will be used to fight this legislation in o ne direction or the other. The problem is cellular providers (more telecome, different sector) are raking in tons of money by selling broadband (or even voice use...) in this rationed manner and they want a big piece of the pie they've been missing for the passed decade.

The best answer is to REFUSE to buy into these services. Otherwise, they still get there money and they can continue to do what they wish.

 

[jcknouse]

This blows my mind.

As BrightHouse Networks (Florida's Time-Warner) was complaining about bandwidth issues here the past year or two, they started offering 10 and 20Mbps services.

If there is limited bandwidth, why offer that much?

And, they are complaining about people file streaming and all tying up too much bandwidth and throttling it? They already do. The same cablemodem I have that does 8Mb/s is the same one you use for their 768kb/s service.

Plus, you won't hear them complain about little grandmas who get on 3 days a week to check emails and get recipes for 20 minutes a day. They only want to complain about people who actually USE their internet.

 

[Hope Slayer]

What us Americans fail to see is that they are charging us to access information that is "mainly" already in the public domain. Yet the public sits by and lets private corporations dictate what they can and can't do and charge us a fee to do so.

Don't know about you folks, but when I pinned my local Comcast drones to the wall about this they got the hint in regards to my bill. I suggest alot more of you drop hints.