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

[dark_lord69]

1 cent per byte = $10,000 per megabyte
That would be like paying an extra.
$50,000 per song.

I don't think they will charge per byte as he stated, they will find that the price is waaaay too high.

1 cent per megabyte = $10.24 per gigabyte
This would also be an exsessive charge.
Aside from the rental cost downloading a movie on your playstation 3 would cost up to $50 or $60 dollars.

10 cents per gigabyte I think this would be a reasonable price.
That price would make the same movie rental only 50 cents or so. This pricing plan would probably save me money over the monthly plan. For heavy downloaders this my seem unfair though.

If they charge 1 cent per gigabyte OMG by bill would be so low! Seriously though this won't happen. They are likely going to try charging more becuase they would be thinking of it as a way to make more money. (It's a greedy corporation just trying to make it's stockholders smile so ya not at this price).

 

[redgarl]

It`s even worst in Canada... it's the slowest internet service in america... the most expensive... and a damn oligopoly.

There is like 8 companies providing high speed internet, and some offer a monthly bandwith of 20 Gig of download for a 7.1 MBps... phhh... 2 games on D2D and your monthly bandwith is exceeded...

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]Random guy546[/nom]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.[/citation]
It's funny, I had a link about that about 45 minutes before you posted.

 

[NegativeX]

If I can cut my internet bill in half but using pay as you go, I'm all for it, especially in this economy.

As long as they don't RAISE prices for current "all-you-can-eat" service, I don't see a problem with allowing people to use pay as you go and only pay for what they really use.

Win win IMO.

 

[Guest]

You need to look at the history of internet connectivity. Used to be connectivity could be over sold 20-40 to one. Each 40 customers required 1 T1 of service to provide 1.5m service. Charge each customer $50.00 = $2000.00 less $250.00 for T1. $1750.00 for equipment, staffing and overhead. Now providers are getting eaten from both sides. Users want more for less. With increasing bandwidth usage and lower prices the model is now something like 10-20 users at $35.00 = $700 less $100 for the T1. Leaving $600.00 for equipment, staffing and overhead. Prices of equipment and overhead are falling, but not in line with the increases in demand on bandwidth and lower prices. Over selling is a fact of life. You do not build capacity to provide one to one connectivity to a community. No one will pay for it. You offer dedicated links to those who have the need for dedicated bandwidth and charge them accordingly. For those of you who use 100% of your bandwidth 24/7, pay for a dedicated link. This would bring the cost back to where it belongs, the 5% that ruin it for everyone else. If you do not like the cost of the dedicated link, maybe you will reconsider how you use your bandwidth.

 

[mustwarnothers]

[citation][nom]CheapOrFast[/nom]You need to look at the history of internet connectivity. Used to be connectivity could be over sold 20-40 to one. Each 40 customers required 1 T1 of service to provide 1.5m service. Charge each customer $50.00 = $2000.00 less $250.00 for T1. $1750.00 for equipment, staffing and overhead. Now providers are getting eaten from both sides. Users want more for less. With increasing bandwidth usage and lower prices the model is now something like 10-20 users at $35.00 = $700 less $100 for the T1. Leaving $600.00 for equipment, staffing and overhead. Prices of equipment and overhead are falling, but not in line with the increases in demand on bandwidth and lower prices. Over selling is a fact of life. You do not build capacity to provide one to one connectivity to a community. No one will pay for it. You offer dedicated links to those who have the need for dedicated bandwidth and charge them accordingly. For those of you who use 100% of your bandwidth 24/7, pay for a dedicated link. This would bring the cost back to where it belongs, the 5% that ruin it for everyone else. If you do not like the cost of the dedicated link, maybe you will reconsider how you use your bandwidth.[/citation]

What about the fact that most of these companies package all of the services in one giant piece?

The prices on Digital Telephone service are right up there with the Internet Packages. It all goes over the same line.

I'm essentially paying 100-150 dollars a month for the single pipe that comes into my home, but delivers more than 1 signal.

There is next to no upkeep on the "Pipe" for the phone. They must be raking in money hand over fist when it comes to that piece of the pie.

I work in the IT Industry, and I work heavily with phone systems in the Credit Union at which I work. I know first hand how little upkeep there is on lines that run voice. Occasionally you get some static, or re-punch lines, but that's about it.

They stick you hard for TV, even on the most simple of packages, they nickle and dime you for every single device that they hand over (Cable Box, Router, Modem, Remotes. God forbid you get more than one Cable box).

The amount all of us shell out each and every month like clockwork, is at least 100 dollars. There is absolutely no way in hell that I'm costing them more than that.

 

[WINTERLORD]

well, realy though one would think that these cable companies do have a big fight ahead of them. you have to consider all the big gaming compaanies that want more online MMO's so there **** cant be pirated. these companies aint as big and/or been around as long as the cable maybe but the gaming companies m,ay be able to get the atcual people us, on board ect ect. also you have to think about the lawsuits this opens them up to because these would be a strict set of rules for pay as you go. so if im hacked and someone uses my pc as a server and i get a giant bill, well imma sue the **** out of pay as you go cable companies.
theres also this to, if the cable companies are going to attemp this, it will be very soon, because what better time to start a cable war , when you got everyone (politcians, president ect) tied up with the health care debate

 

[WINTERLORD]

Also these cable companies need to man up. charge a cheaper price for cable to stay competitive with online streaming services, and upgrade the existing network with all the years of price gauging----- ahhh or did they spend it already on private parties.......
but i really don't see this happening, instead they'd rather spend millions if not billions paying politicains off, wich is only a short term solution for a long term problem

 

[factoryfast]

As a heavy internet user (bitorrent, Netflix, Hulu) I understand the fact that I use way more of my connection than my neighbor yet we pay the same price. As a liberty and privacy lover, I also understand that net neutrality is really about expanding the power of the FCC to regulate the internet. The FCC will regulate the internet by forcing ISP's to disclose what their users do on the web in the name of justice; in reality, net neutrality regulation is about giving the government additional power while reducing privacy. I happen to currently love my ISP. If my ISP instituted metered bandwidth, I'd try to find an ISP that doesn't. If that's not possible, I'd have to finally pay for what I'm actually using. This is the beauty of the free market - it's efficient. Expanding government, reducing privacy, encouraging corporatism and reducing efficiency doesn't seem like the solution to me. Has everyone that calls for more government intervention forgotten about the influence that big corporations have over legislation? Giving the government more power is essentially giving big bad ISP's more power. Lobbies could essentially write the new legislation in their favor to further reduce competition and then consumers would really have something to cry about. Wake up.

 

[antilycus]

The late 90's and early 2000's are gone you greedy fucks. You arent going ot make as much money because its more than apparent that you don't share it with your employees. Now you can suck a fat one and live middle class (gasp) because you obviously have no idea what makes money and how to keep itcoming in. Tiering this system isn't the best bet. I pay 80 bucks month for Business Class and it does get annoying when little dweeds suck up 90% of the bandwidth downloading their free movies (you cheap fucks). The system needs to be upgraded...the U.S. is STIL one of the slowest in the world for a "useful" government

 

[antilycus]

Here is the best way to look at it. the INTERNET gets you to the stores, just like the roads. We ALL pay the same amount of taxes regardless of how much we travel on it. What makes the internet any different? I have to deal with the loud ass crappy harley's every morning, so the ISP's can deal with the fact that they arent making hand over fist for cash...

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]factoryfast[/nom]As a liberty and privacy lover, I also understand that net neutrality is really about expanding the power of the FCC to regulate the internet. The FCC will regulate the internet by forcing ISP's to disclose what their users do on the web in the name of justice...[/citaton]
Umm, no. That's not part of any "network neutrality" rules being discussed as far as I can tell. What the FCC is doing is preserving the ability to use any kind of protocol over the service you pay for without having it selectively degraded or blocked. There's not even any need to analyze what users are ultimately doing if you guarantee that they can keep doing it and not being selectively punished for it. This is to keep cable and telco companies from blocking Hulu or Youtube, or Skype, as a way to "encourage" you to use their own television and telephone services, for instance. This also means they won't be blocking usenet or p2p traffic.

Expanding government, reducing privacy, encouraging corporatism...

What does "encouraging corporatism" even mean here?

Has everyone that calls for more government intervention forgotten about the influence that big corporations have over legislation?

Yeah, corporations can say "They're using eMule to download kiddy porn, let us slow it down or ban it from our networks! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" in an effort to reduce traffic to avoid updating their lines and hardware. Under network neutrality, they can't do that.

Giving the government more power is essentially giving big bad ISP's more power.

Yes, that must be why the ISPs are all arguing against the FCC's recent positions, because it will just give them too much power for themselves. This argument isn't even coherent.

 

[factoryfast]

Wheels,

I said a lot of stuff without thorough explanation, it's only a comment after all. Sorry for the apparent incoherence.

The network neutrality regulation bill (HR3458) isn't titled "More unconstitutional intrusion of the FCC into areas where it doesn't belong." Voters might balk at language that clear.

How will the FCC make sure that all ISP's are playing by the rules? They will look at ISPs' records of course. That means the government has the means to see what websites we visit. So yes, a big invasion of privacy will be a part of any net neutrality legislation.

Corporatism applies to this situation simply because the FCC is all about licensing. Small start-ups will not be able to compete with the big boys thanks to heavy-duty regulation that costs a lot of money. Competition shrinks and the consumer is faced with higher prices and fewer choices. By increasing government power and regulation, big ISP's will face less competition. So ISP's may argue (legitimately) that the government shouldn't tell them how to run their networks, but driving competition out of the market surely can't hurt them.

This is purely hypothetical, but ISP's could lobby Washington for even more public funding so that they can comply with net neutrality regulation. This is one example of what I meant by influence. Your eMule example is over-the-top, it's too obvious. ISP's would simply lobby to make sure whatever legislation gets passed includes ways to charge more money and face less competition.

 

[g00ey]

[citation][nom]supertrek32[/nom]Many people have examined the revenue/profit/expenses/etc of major ISPs ...[/citation]

The reason ppl don't like your comment is that the entire pay-as-you-go scheme is totally ridiculous. There is no limit of bandwith, the more customers an ISP gets the more equipment he has to buy, it's simple as that. It works and is profitable for any ISP with a traditional "flat rate" who manages his busines properly.
I can see the following reasons why the ISPs are pushing for this scheme

1. Pressure from MPAA, and RIAA
2. The economic downturn has brought substantial losses upon the ISPs

Their intentions are to squeeze out bandwidth from the regular internet users into paying video-on-demand users and pay-TV subscribers, so that they don't have to invest in new equipment to increase their bandwidth. They are probably getting paid by all these above mentioned organizations for this. And they also want to make people pay more for their internet usage. It's sad to say but the US market is free no more, and people there are like cattle that the corporations, organizations and the government is pushing around.

 

[Bruceification73]

[citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]competition in certain markets is not healthy! Look at gas stations, if one raises their price the guy across the street is not going to stand by and not make that extra dime per gallon.[/citation]

Where the hell do you live? Where I live, when a new competing gas station opens up, all the gas stations in the area lower their prices. Competition was designed to lower prices, and it does a great job. Yes, the opposite is true. If one gas station starts raising its prices, often times the rest will. But most gas stations won't raise prices unless they have to, because if they raise them and everyone else doesn't, which can happen, then the one that raised their prices will suffer a loss in business. Wherever you grew up is a fcuked up place. Capitalism and the free market doesn't always result in perfect everything paradise, but socialism and state-controll of all the goods never does. Just look at any country that ever had socialism either economically or politically, or both. Russia collapsed and had to rebuild, meanwhile tens of millions of people were dying of starvation. Britain suffered much less, but that is because they are much less socialist than Russia was. They were once a superpower, and are now just another devoloped country. Germany, well, we all know what happened there. China has an average income per capita (average annual income per person) of about $6,000. I could go on all day!

 

[truerock]

I pay $30 per month for 1.4Mb/s ADSL from AT&T. I average about 30 GB up+down per month. So, $1 per GB seems OK to me. Why would anyone have a problem with $1 per GB?

 

[Bruceification73]

True, but I don't pay $30 a month for internet as it is.