Pay-to Play and the Tiered Internet 664
Crash24 writes "According to an article at The Nation, "industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received." " Tiered internet service may be inevitable folks. Brace yourself.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Fight (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is successful, it will be the single largest "limiting" factor in the online world. What if this was the case 10 years ago? We wouldn't have the plethora of online stores we currently have, that's for sure. Or blogs. Or online games. Or P2P for that matter. Or VOIP. NONE of these "cool" technologies would have ever gotten out of the starting gate.
I could go on an on about how bad of an idea it is but I fear I am just wasting my breath. Until internet access is treated as a utility, this nonsense will continue to go on unchecked.
Oh I wouldn't say so (Score:5, Insightful)
ESPN successfully broght pressure on Cox in a similar manner. Cox didn't want to pay as much as ESPN wanted and so threatened to take ESPN off the channel listings. ESPN in turn let all Cox customers know what was going on. Cox customers got mad and said they'd switch to sat service if this happened, ESPN is still on Cox.
Or it could end up like game consoles... (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how many people here on Slashdot have an Xbox and a PS2 (and maybe a GameCube), just for this reason...
Re:Agree...except (Score:3, Insightful)
Do it to the first one who adopts the policy as soon as they do. If they do it all at once, pick the most egregious violator or rotate.
Better than blocking them would be to return a stub web page that explains exactly why customers of a given network don't have access to those sites, as well as the phone number to t
Re:Fight (Score:4, Interesting)
And video confrencing.... (Score:5, Informative)
*Video confencing still has not taken off. Not because of general bandwidth limitations, but because of upload caps.
*Telecommuting is limited due to blocks, throttleing, or "accidental" outages on ports necessary for telecommuters. (Those of us that do telecommute often pay dramatically more to not have artifical barriers.)
I'm sure others could add to the list. It is the video confrencing that pisses me off. The upload speeds are always so much lower than the download speeds in just about every package that you need a package with way more download speed than necessary just to get sub par upload speeds.
I telecommute, and work on projects that very often require team coding. As in two people sitting together looking at the same screen. Screen sharing works, and we are very productive, but sometimes it would be a whole lot easier if I could see the other coders finger pointing at the screen, or piece of paper.
And, before the trolls come out and tell me I should just move closer to my work, and go into the office, keep in mind. My clients and I are saving money, reducing infrastucture costs, saving air quality, while at the same time improving my quality of life as well as that of my family. I think it is good for me, my son, and society that I get to keep my child home with me most of the time instead of shipping him off to spend more time with a daycare provider than he does with his family. I also have no desire to move myself and my family next to an industrial complex.
Re:And video confrencing.... (Score:3, Interesting)
They'll advertise the benifits of high speed ADSL access with unlimited downloads, but then (at least in Australia) the fine print will show a download/upload speed of 512/128 with a download limit of 10Gb per month (you might get a bit extra in off peak periods). Even the new ADSL2 available in some places is 1500/256, still with a download limit of 10Gb per month and a cost of over $100 Aus per month.
Those Australians stupid en
Re:Fight (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Let Google or Microsoft null route Bellsouth's netblocks and see who really needs whom.
Re:Fight (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really, the user doesn't actually need the telco per se, the telcos don't add any value to the transaction between MSFT/Google/Amazon and the customer. They don't create the content of, therefore the interest in, therefore the value of Internet. They don't create the need for users to actually use them. Content providers create the need for telcos, if the user can't get the c
Re:Fight (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't Google buying up lots of dark fiber? Maybe Google has already started the attck on the ISPs..
Re:Fight (Score:5, Insightful)
However, as soon as you start talking about charging more or less based on which web sites you go to, or which emails you get (and from whom), Internet service *isn't* being treated as a commodity where all connections are essentially just another stream of bits passing by the routers.
Re:Fight (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.slate.com/id/2135226/ [slate.com]
It basically comes down to "what will the consumer pay." Some people will pay more than others for the exact same service. Either because they've got cash to burn, or because it is more valuable for them.
This is why
Re:Fight (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fight (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fight (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Fight (Score:3, Informative)
So what happens when both companies start doign the same monopolistic grabbings? Under the law, you've got a choice; therefore, you have no leg to stand on.
Not entirely true. There is such a thing as "tacit collusion," which is can be illegal under U.S. anti-trust laws. The classic example is all four gas stations in a small town keeping their prices artificially high, without ever talking to each other about it.
Not that the current U.S. administration is ever going to address this kind of crap.
Re:Fight (Score:4, Insightful)
Non-discriminatory Net access is not "a strip club", and is becoming more and more of an essential commodity to people-in their education, in their work, in the businesses they run, in the schools they attend.
We already see false advertising from several ISP's, where they advertise a given speed but then severely cap how much bandwidth you can use in a month, not to mention those which advertise "6 Mbps service!", without mentioning, that if you happen to want to -upload- something, it's nowhere near that. At the very least, they should -have- to advertise it as 6 Mbps download/384 Kbit upload, or whatever the case may be. They also should not be permitted to advertise "unlimited Internet service" unless it is, in fact, that-no bandwidth cap, no rules against servers, no other similar garbage. Anything with those restrictions is LIMITED Internet service, and should be required to be clearly marked.
For example, let's take an ISP that offers 1 Mbit/s download, but "caps" the user to 5 GB (or, to make the math easier, 40 Gb) per month. What are they really offering?
Well, first, let's figure seconds in a month. We shall take a 30-day month just for a nice average, even it being February now.
By my calculations, you'd have (30 days) * (24 hours) * (60 minutes) * (60 seconds), or 2592000 seconds, in a 30-day month.
Now, what's your effective speed? Well, to get a "per-second" rating, let's divide the amount of data you can download (40 Gb, in our example, or 40,000,000,000 bits), by that number of seconds (2592000), to get a nice per-second rating.
Will you look at that? 15433, if we round up-or about 15 Kb/s. You can actually shift -less- data, through this ISP, then you can through dial-up! And yet they advertise "2 million times faster then dial-up!" or whatever garbage it is now.
But these people are telling the truth. Really. And they're not going to collude. Really. They've got a great record so far of not screwing over the customer. And you're right too, it only takes maybe half a billion dollars to even have -any- hope of launching a telco startup. I mean, I've got that in my shoebox in the basement, and I'm sure you do too. So I'm sure both of us could just launch a startup tomorrow and be happy as hell.
Re:Fight (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a story of the content holders fighting against the content distributors, the telecoms now see themselves as the new publishers and like the members of the RIAA or the MPAA, are dec
Re:Fight (Score:5, Interesting)
Certainly, there's the possibility that if Verizon throttles your connection and Comcast doesn't, you'll switch to Comcast. But if Yahoo pays Verizon not to throttle their data and Google doesn't, is the average user (ie a non-/. reading, doesn't know the difference between ram and hard drive space, still uses IE 5.0, etc) going to know to switch to Comcast or are they simply going to see that Yahoo is snappy and Google is slow, so use Yahoo? I suspect a bit of both will happen, and unless Verizon loses enough customers that they're losing more money than Yahoo is paying them, Verizon is still going to come out ahead.
(Names used here are just examples and not meant to indicate that one company is better than the other.)
Re:Fight (Score:3, Insightful)
It would take about 17 minutes for Google to add a notice to their pages for Verizon users telling them that their ISP is deliberately crippling their connection.
Re:Fight (Score:4, Interesting)
And even less time for them to figure out where you are based on your IP address, and show you very targeted ads to help you find a better provider!
While making money on the ads even.
Believe me, Google has very little to lose in this fight...
Re:Fight (Score:3, Insightful)
Not fighting (Score:2)
But in reality some of the cable providers (or in the recent past) would terminate service for
using too much traffic.
Price Fixing? (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of competition is that, when Verizon does something stupid that punishes customers, I can go somewhere else. It's a real problem if all the gatekeepers can legally get together and decide to give us all the shaft. And not even to try to hide their cooperation against consumers?! Messed up.
Re:Price Fixing? (Score:5, Interesting)
The story of how the Baby Bells FuXx0r3d America is relevant to any discussion involving internet service provided by a telephone company. I honestly wouldn't put anything,/i> past the telcos & cable companies.
They've paid for their legislation & regulation and they'll keep paying up as long as it is cost effective to do so.
Re:Price Fixing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Price Fixing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Common Carrier, per FCC rule, only applies to voiceband channels less than 64Kbps. You can have all the Common Carrier you want, so long as you go back to Dial-up.
Telecommunications companies don't like Common Carrier restrictions. They agreed to them, years ago, because the Public offered them something in return which they would have been fools to pass up: access to public rights-of-way. (Public. That's right. Stuff you owned that got handed over to Private Companies by the Government; that's a tax. In return, you got the Internet. Fair deal?)
We (the People) could impose Common Carrier rules on broadband providers using public right-of-way facilities through a simple FCC rule change. Companies which own their entire network could still discriminate as they want (as would you, as the owner of all the ethernet in your house) but companies running packets through FCC-controlled spectrum (that's everything) or along public rights-of-way (poles, underground cables along roads, etc) would be required to follow the same rules the phone companies have had to follow for 150 years.
Will that happen? Never. Too many slash dotters who still can't think past the FCC is part of the Government, and everything the Government does is bad, so there's no way I'm going to let the FCC impose their laws on my beloved Internet...
Now, where did I put my remote control and bag of quarters?
Re:Price Fixing? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Price Fixing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because it's the most suicidal thing the phone companies could possibly do, that doesn't mean they aren't dumb enough to to it.
Re:Price Fixing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Price Fixing? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell do you expect to happen when you let these companies conglomerate all this power without so much as a "Remember Ma Bell"? Of course they're going to screw us over, they're corporations. If it was legal and made them money they would feed kitten entrails to school-children.
Re:Price Fixing? (Score:3, Insightful)
What you are feeling is cognitive dissonance. You're being exposed to a short, sharp shock
Dont forget Encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thankfully... (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Get tiered Internet pricing with big profits and big control over their customers.
2) Get regulated (again) by tons of government rules and tariffs about how much they're allowed to charge subscribers when constituents start bitchin' and whinin' to their congresscritters. Again, virtually guaranteed profits with less incentive to beat each other up constantly as they have to d
The telcos don't own TCP/IP. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the worst case happens and the telcos "destroy" the internet, why couldn't everybody with a wifi card get together over a metropolitan area and create an internet-like ad-hoc wireless network? It would be a little more complex because the nodes would be constantly moving around (so the routing tables would be hard to handle), but in principle it could work, and there would be no "pipe" for anyone to "own". Maybe this afternoon I will do some cocktail napkin calculations to see if this could work, but if anyone has a reference to something similar I'd like to hear about it.
Co-operatives could get together and arrange for microwave links between cities (or, they could buy some of the "dark fiber" that we keep hearing about).
No central servers, no routers, no single points of failure, no central logging facilities, no closed ports
Do you mean.... (Score:5, Informative)
If the telcos do this (Score:3, Insightful)
Information will always get cheaper. it is inevitable.
Chicken and the egg (Score:5, Interesting)
I see a future where people don't have "free range" web access or email at home at all. You want the news? Subscribe to it. You want porn? Subscribe to it. Don't be surprised when email and web browsing becomes something you use at the office in a closed inTRAnet system.
They understand perfectly (Score:3, Insightful)
The carriers realize it perfectly. They're just selling their line of BS to the politicians and public. Make no mistake, it's not about "paying for the pipes", it's about gaining control over content and making money hand over fist off it.
In other words, they want to turn the internet into AOL.
Back up just a minute (Score:3, Interesting)
TFA is from "The Nation", which has a particular slant ... antiBigCorporation, TheSkyIsFallingBecauseWalMartIsTakingOver. Which has some merit, but can occasionally (and in this case definitely) be overly alarmist.
TFA furthermore makes references to white papers, but the link takes you NOT to primary source white papers, but to "democracticmedia.org", which links to "white papers" that are ... kept on the same site.
In other words: No primary source mate
Re:Thankfully... (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon, back when it was GTE, wrote most of the Telecommunications Act. I don't think that most of the legislators who voted on it knew what was in it. More and more that's the case. It's the companies that write the legislation. The people we send to congress simply don't have the technical expertise and apparently don't make sure they have the staffers that do.
If you ever wonder why you don't have the government you want. You should ask yourself when was the last time you communicated your desires to your elected officials and when did you last vote.
Easy way around this.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Titan wars... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I would likely be willing to pay $20-$25 a month for that... (assuming 1Mbps/384Kbps or some such)
-nB
Google isn't going to help you (Score:4, Insightful)
Generally, Google can be said to do great things because they find information that isn't currently being used and then utilize that information at a huge scale. That produces some amazing results. Everyone wins (except for maybe their competitors).
This is a question of policy, not a technical advancement. Some users are being subsidized by other users. Yes, that's you with the P2P client. Probably many Slashdotters are being subsidized by other users today, which is probably why the idea isn't popular here.
However, in terms of efficiency for the industry, it's a good thing. You want to not force people to pay for what they aren't themselves using. My parents barely use the Internet at all -- why should they be forced to pay for the dozens of gigs a month the kid down the block is pulling down? You want to encourage people not to waste bandwidth -- this will help promote network-friendly software and behavior.
Plus, if the tiers get fine-grained enough, they'd be great for techies. Right now, there is a very, very rough-grained tiering currently happening at most ISPs. You have "business class" and "home class". Unfortunately, most techies wind up uncomfortably best fit by "business class" service. They'd like to have multiple static IP addresses, they don't want any ports to be blocked in or out, they don't really give a damn about the ISP's webmail, and so forth. They don't need technical support, and don't really want to subsidize the cost of having some minimum-wage worker repeat -- for the thousandth time -- his troubleshooting flowchart to Joe Sixpack.
The problem is, "business class" service is expensive. Bob Techie isn't actually much more expensive to service than a typical residential user, but he currently gets lumped in with businesses in terms of what he values.
Second, I'm hoping against hope that maybe some ISPs will start offering QoS as part of their tiered packages. That would be *fantastic*. It's in everyone's interest to provide a little extra information that lets routers handle their data more efficiently. If I get, say, 100MB of high-priority data (ToS bit set in the IP header for minimize latency, a la ssh, ftp control, and so forth) a month with my tier, I can get really good performance on the things that I care about -- like, say, playing network games with extremely low latency or sshing into another machine. I don't really care, in comparison, how long it takes my mailserver to shove some mail out. I'm perfectly happy to mark that as "low priority" (or rather, just use software that already does so). P2P software doesn't need high priority, and is there to soak up any available excess bandwidth, and should definitely be low priority.
Re:Titan wars... (Score:4, Insightful)
Afterall, with M$, Amazon, Google, all pulling for net neutrality? I would hope it would would stand out a little better.
Re:Thankfully... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is so Disheartening... (Score:3, Insightful)
Canada and France restrict "free speech" to what they consider to be politically correct.
The UK puts cameras everywhere they can get away with, and makes sure that all of the real arms in the country are either in the hands of their police or people who are already criminals so that they'll always be in control.
And Australia does it all as soon as another country gives them the idea.
Don't know about Irela
The End of the Internet, for USians (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm quite surprised that out of so many competitions, like GPS, satellite, Space program etc., which cost huge amount of money, no country is yet to create another internet.
On the other hand, if all service providers band together, we might finally see the feasibility of micropayment, so that a penny is charged to your broadband bill every time you access Slashdot.
Re:The End of the Internet, for USians (Score:2, Funny)
Are you mad? I'd go broke in a day!
Re:The End of the Internet, for USians (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not for a net where only the rich can afford to be popular.
Re:The End of the Internet, for USians (Score:5, Insightful)
New model:
500 power user customers @ $100/month = $50,000
4500 email and light web users @ $50/month = $225,000
New Income: $275K
equitable policy would be okay (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this possible proposed policy to establish equity? If so, I'm okay with that. I've often wondered that for the same $30/month as my neighbor I can download five of the latest linux distributions, sample 20 or 30 trial software packages (large).
What would bother me, and bother me greatly, would be if they established pricing baselines the cheapest of which match what people pay today. In other words, a money-grab.
People have long paid more money to make more long distance calls, that only makes sense. Why not for heavier internet usage? It makes sense that heavier users pay higher fees.
There also could be additional benefits (assuming this is a fair and balanced idea) -- that being a more moderated approach to internet usage. I don't doubt a significant slice of internet bandwidth is absorbed by indiscriminate downloading and uploading, and streaming. I know I don't think twice about downloading Photoshop Elements to trial for a couple days (~300MB) just because I can. I'm also just as likely to stream my music to whereever I am in the country from my server at my home, again, just because I can. How many others approach the internet in the same way? I'm guessing "many".
If users used the internet as a finite resource (which it is, by the way) the usability of the internet would improve almost immediately and expansion costs and needs would attenuate (my opinion). All of this would help keep costs and increased charges down (again, assuming businesses are here to charge us a fair price).
But, based on everything else I see in business, this may not pass the smell test. Sigh
Re:equitable policy would be okay (Score:3, Interesting)
People have long paid more money to make more long distance calls, that only makes sense. Why not for heavier internet usage? It makes sense that heavier users pay higher fees.
This only makes sense if you do not believe in competition between companies. Its competition now that allows many of us to make long distance phone calls for one flat low rate. Yes, this argument makes sense from a cost stand point to the company. But by allowing competition in these market places, we the comsumers reap more b
Re:equitable policy would be okay (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are lucky enough to live in a big enough market you might see some competition. But the majority of us, especially people not living in large markets, aren't going to see any competition.
Now so that you can moderate me down, I'm going to posit that internet service (the pipe) should really be considered an utility and should highly regulated to provide maximum access at affordable rates to everyone (again, not just people in large markets).
Re:equitable policy would be okay (Score:5, Interesting)
But the bottom line is this: ATT/Verizon/etc. do not get to establish these contracts. Their job is to run the network. I want a group of 3rd party ISPs to each independently build their own real time networks and sell the services to customers who can chose amongst ISPs to get the best service. The ISPs will then give the carriers instructions about how the network is to be set up, and pay them for their troubles. The INTERFACE to customers, and to the network, must be public, non-proprietary and transparent, like IPv4 is. Customers must be able to monitor and ensure their contract is being upheld. No proprietary set top boxes or any premises equipment, period.
The guy who owns the wire must stop being the guy who provides the service. That model doesn't work. Further we need to see more REAL competition as much as we can. We can't ever see competition over wires, two or three wires does not a competitive market make. So reduce their role by force, and abstract it.
Re:equitable policy would be okay (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a renewable resource. True, bandwidth is limited (total divided by users), but each completed packet restores that same amount of bandwidth to the network.
Re:equitable policy would be okay (Score:3, Insightful)
By that line of reasoning, the sun is a finite resource, because space aliens could just put solar collectors in orbit around earth and absorb all the energy.
(and yes, technically the sun is a finite resource because it will go supernova in about 5 billion years. But the general definition of renewable implies "non-finite for the relative future")
Re:equitable policy would be okay (Score:3, Insightful)
Fossil fuels are finite because when it's gone, you can't just go make more petroleum. Wood is a renewable resoure because you can plant more trees. That doesn't mean that everyone has in infinite amount of trees to cut down.
Re:equitable policy would be okay (Score:5, Interesting)
But no one pays extra to make hour-long local calls, if they like, and this procedure has worked very well for quite some time too. Everything, so to speak, is a "finite resource", but with the amount of unused bandwidth floating around there, and the low levels ISP's cap it at (Japan and many European cities see 20-100 Mbps as a matter of course), there's no excuse for this. I expect to pay for bandwidth at a flat rate, and I expect to use it. If all I wanted to do was occasionally look at webpages and check my email, I'd use the $8/month dialup ISP here. I pay $50 a month for broadband because -I expect to use it-.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, there are some equipment costs, but if these types of connections are used on just the primary backbones that still would provide a LOT of bandwidth.
Look at it this way. I
We already have equitable tiered service (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with the proposed schemes is that they want to meter *applications*, not bandwidth and usage. This is just wrong for any application. But it especially burns for email given the spam problem. I just installed an authentication filter for a client with a business class Cox cable account. He was getting 65000+ emails per day per domain for 20 domains, eating 3MB download bandwidth (they were just getting appended to a rotating log file since he couldn't even begin to try to find the legit mail in all the crap). All but 20 emails per day per domain are forgeries (and now get rejected in SMTP envelope thanks to the filter). Imagine the ISP charging per email SYN packet. Talk about unjust. Most of the 20 are still spam, but at least those spammers will say who they are (and so are closer to a "cold call").
Re:equitable policy would be okay (Score:5, Interesting)
Internet access has been marketed to the better part of the world for years as an infinite resource, full of promise, that can solve all of your problems, tie your shoes, start your car and julienne your fries. All this for a low, low rate of $xx.yy per month.
Why should I have to pay extra to download trial software packages and Linux distributions simply because my neighbour does not wish to do so? That's horrible. That's like saying that if my neighbour buys a car and doesn't use it as often as I use mine, I should have to pay more money. He can drive just as much as I do, I simply choose to do so more often, or to take different roads, or to take the longer way home. It costs me more gasoline, but one could argue that using my computer more often costs me more in electricity.
If we saw a lobby group advocating mass tolls on our roads so that we could tax those who drive more often (I'm not talking highways), there would be mass hysteria. Why is this any different?
This is where a lot of people will disagree. What you call "indiscriminate", most people will call "my right". Granted, all of the providers that I've ever been with "reserve the right" to modify their access agreements at any time. I guarantee you, however, that if my ISP imposes this garbage on me, I'll simply find another. And there will always be others.
Businesses, by the way, are not here to charge us a fair price. They are here to make money.
Accepted by the Masses? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can see this being attempted, no doubt. However I simply cannot see it being accepted by the public. You can't take away something that was free from the public without causing a revolution. I don't think these people have as firm a grasp on the concept of the internet that they think.
It bothers me that the government is having such a field day with all these search engines, blasting them about censoring for China. Yet that same government wants to completely try to contain the internet for the capital gain and exploitation of certain telecom companies?
The internet is the biggest creation of our time, I really hope people won't lie down and let this happen. Use your voice people, do something, I know I will.
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, we in Europe have finally gotten rid of the Pay Per Minute system with cable/adsl. You that have had it for so long, want to move to Pay Per View? You're not evolving, you're degenerating...
How things used to be. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How things used to be. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I live in an area with too many ISP options, but I have to agree with you. The only way something like this could happen is if either every ISP made this change simultaneously, or if the tiered stuff offered something so wonderfully attractive that I would have to take it (and I could not even begin to imagine what that would be).
I know I have already sent messages to my (small) telco saying that if they attempted someth
If they win, they lose. (Score:2)
This is a non-starter.
Brace yourself... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then it occurred to me that these minornets could very well be linked to one another -- microwave or other wireless connections. Sure, the latency goes up, but the reliance on the communications cartels (there is definitely a collusive conspiracy theory there!) is reduced greatly. You tie into the main Internet at a few points, set up your routing to get everyone into the main Internet in the fastest fashion, and you're set. It might be complicated initially but the software and hardware is out there to make it happen, IF NEEDED.
I really think that the whole idea of relying on the big boys' land lines might not be necessary. I was a endpoint on Fidonet, and got along just fine as technology progressed -- some people used X.25, some used landlines, some used ISDN lines, but we all got along. It was slow, but it worked, and it became better over time.
We have to thank the big providers for really being confused for so long as to how they can take advantage of the net. Now we have many ways to stay connected -- I connect to the web via my PDA (and my laptop) through my Samsung t809 with a Bluetooth connection. I'm using it right now, and I get 150kbps downloads -- more than enough. If I didn't have T-Mobile's great package, I know I have about 5 other wireless providers I could buy bandwidth from.
Give it time. Those who try to control you will not realize that there are those who know they can offer less control at a better price. Don't like the monopoly tiered service in your community? Go get a T1, and run a WiFi provider in your area. 3 of my neighbors pay me US$10 a month to get on my megapipe already. I could probably get another 20 of them if I really went out to try.
Tiered service MIGHT be what the average household wants, though. If the monopolies try it and no one comes in to offer a cheaper/less controlled service, the free market will have answered that question. I'd like to hear what the more authoritarian slashdotters here have to say about how the free market could fail the individual user in this case.
Just remember one thing -- if MegaCorp X is a monopoly provider of high speed bandwidth in your town, it isn't MegaCorp X's fault. Go blame the government who gave them the monopoly. If MegaCorp Y created their connections over previous monopoly status, don't ask MegaCorp Y to give you back what you gave them originally -- the right to be a monopoly. This is why I am against government licensing and regulations -- it creates these monopolies which come to affect us decades later.
It isn't the monopolies' fault that you let your local government give up your rights in exchange for bad service. In the old days, maybe it was OK -- it was either bad service or no service. Yet we see the slippery slope and how it affects us in the future, and we need to carefully think about the programs we're asking for today that might become bad monopoly services in the future.
Re:Brace yourself... (Score:3, Interesting)
makes me laugh ... how are they gonna tell what I'm doing when everything gets run encrypted on random/non-standard ports? If it wasn't coming from persumably 'techie' companies I'd think this as funny as the porn port [slashdot.org]
Not that I bother today, but let's fac
Re:Brace yourself... (Score:3, Interesting)
The internet works because of the massive pipes criss crossing the whole world - a
Spam (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdotted ... (Score:5, Funny)
I can only see this as a market opportunity... (Score:2)
is this why (Score:2)
So what's my motivation? (Score:4, Informative)
Ok, the industry goons look at the current model and say "we could make more money if we installed limits."
But wouldn't everyone have to do the same thing on the same day in order to make this work? If my cablemodem suddenly had these idiotic limits put on it I'd move to another service that very day.
How in the world could the industry get paying customers on a less capable model than what we already have? And how could they eliminate every single other alternative?
Re:So what's my motivation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now there are only a handfull of players left with a financial interest to screw you. Why not?
Allready Happened (Score:2)
I'm not worried (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems to me that there are plenty of contenders out there vying for the home broadband market, and with upcoming wireless standards more contenders will emerge. We're not going to be stuck choosing between cable and DSL. Unless the main providers can create an illegal cartel (and evade government prosecution for doing so), I can't s
Re:I'm not worried (Score:3, Funny)
Kind of like the Republican party?
Price Fixing? (Score:3, Insightful)
it's like this already (Score:3, Insightful)
if you are saying they are going to offer me less bandwidth for the same $, then we have a problem, but i'm sure a competitor has something to say about that
but if you are saying if i pay them 2x$ what i am already paying for a significantly bigger pipe, i don't exactly see what the problem is.
Famous Last Words (Score:2)
I remember a time when the internet was tiered... (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I missing something, or does this just smack of wanting to roll back time?
This isn't going to work on that level... (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying that they will charge per e-mail or download is as unrealistic as the electric company charging you per piece of toast, or load of laundry that you wash. What they can charge you on is the bandwidth that you use. Similar to how the electric company can charge per kilowatt hour... Also... They could only ever charge you for what you downloaded. Can you imagine how pissed you would be to find out that all the responses to incoming zombie requests to you computer racked up a $400 "Internet" bill. Even then, people will not be happy with the idea that they have to pay $15.00 extra dollars this month because a Microsoft error led to a giant ass patch they HAD to download.
It will not happen, the die has been cast and you can't repurpose this airplane as a clown's scooter.
Internet goes down like Prodigy (Score:2, Informative)
This business model is exactly what killed it, everyone split shortly after the changes were made. You can expect people to not happily go along with it this time either.
Propoganda at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Two thoughts here.
Why should L3 allow at&t's backbone to route traffic across their pipes or vice versa? Are they idiots or would they seriously rather have no interconnects and have the internet break down to multiple WAN's?
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Google or Yahoo! or basically any other web site out there pay for their bandwidth and on top of this, the consumers pay for essentially the same thing on the other end. Basically they're double dipping and still complaining that they aren't making enough.
WTF - I Already Pay for my Usage (Score:4, Interesting)
Ya see, here in the Great White (as in snow) North Canada, I pay a premium price for unlimited downloads. Regular and basic plans have capped monthly limits.
I just can't see how the US government or more importantly the rest of the planet would allow these modern day robber barrons to create this tiered system. That would be like my cable company charging me $10 a month because I watched 100 more reruns last month.
And speaking of my cable company, how would local telcos charge for this "extra" bandwidth? Their pipe isn't going to get any bigger so its not a quantity issue or are they simply going to be tollgates for "priority traffic". Which is probably the case which means its NOT a bandwidth issue, its a money grab.
I think its rather timely that the $200 Billion Broadband Scandel is being released.
http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm [newnetworks.com]
$200 Billion Dollar Broadband Scandal, is a powerful critique that outlines a truly massive case of fraud. The Bell Companies (Verizon, SBC, Qwest, and BellSouth) used trickery and deceit to swindle the U.S. out of a promised 45mbps internet connection. They collected billions of dollars in regulatory fees, and now they are attempting to commoditize the Internet. Kushnick's book uses stunning detail to expose this treachery with accuracy and thoroughness.
You silly Murickans....
I already have this... (Score:3, Informative)
In reality, the sweet spot is still the standard service. If I ever find myself needed an extra two or three Mbps of downstream transfer, it seems appropriate for me to pay an extra $10/month -- I'd obviously cease to be a typical "browsing and emailing" user.
Let them try... (Score:3, Insightful)
tiering - lose common carrier (Score:3, Insightful)
New Tiered Market (Score:5, Interesting)
But now I'm having second thoughts. Perhaps this tiered market is a good idea. I'm thinking that I'll introduce tiered service levels for access to the easement on my property, and I think as a citizen I will request a new tiered system for corporate access to public property. Perhaps something like this would work:
Silver Level, for a minimal fee of say $100 USD per foot per year I'll allow telecom's to lay cable through my backyard.
Gold Level, I'll actually let the telecom's use their cable they laid in my backyard for a minimal licensing fee of 20% of all revenues related to any data which traverses the lines in my backyard.
Platinum Level, for a minimal fee of $10 per connection I'll allow the telecom company to make data connections from their cable in my backyard to cables in the neighbors backyards.
The tiered program for public property will be similar but will require that all revenue from the program is paid back to all tax paying citizens.
This is just my first rough draft, it will need much more refining, but you know I really should have more control over how my property is used and I should be allowed to participate in the capitalization of said property.
burnin
Bean counters rule the world (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Hosting bills pay for access to the pipes (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, when someone like Google pays their hosting bills, they're paying for access to that pipe. Isn't that why we PAY hosting bills? What did I miss?
If you don't want to sell access on your backbone, then don't. The Internet and its open access system made ATT/SBC its money, as well as many other companies. Do they seriously intend to turn it around and shut down the system that made them rich? Do they intend to create a private online service, like AOL? If that could work, then why are people concerned about AOLs future?
I hope all of this talk is just people over reacting, but some how, I suspect it's more than that.
Just Like the Mobile Companies (Score:3, Informative)
We Need Alternatives (Score:4, Insightful)
It's critical that we are represented fairly when it comes to making use of the spectrum to be given up when analog tv broadcasting shuts down. Think of spectrum as our atmosphere to breathe and speak electronically.
Don't let them sell our "air" to the monopolies.
I am not worried (Score:3, Interesting)
So, instead ... WE will be the "other provider." And because we are a CLEC, we are very enthusiastic about taking customers away from Verizon and Qworst.
Re:Fine with me (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, they own the pipes, but they are already charging people for the data being sent across it. If you make a long distance phone call, lets say, to your grandmother, would it be fair for the phone company to charge both you and grandma for the call? What about if they charge you for placing the call, and then charged grandma extra if she wants the sound of her voice at normal volume, instead of restricted to 10% volume?
Content providers pay a huge amount in connectivity already (I've worked for some, and have seen the bills) and my internet access at home isn't what I'd call cheap either (~$50/month). The backbone providers get their money from the connection providers that the content providers and users, like you and I, buy bandwidth from. So, they are already being paid for the traffic going across their pipes by the parties involved in the transfer.
I don't know about you, but I personally would prefer not to be double billed.
Re:Town Square (Score:3, Insightful)
This line struck out to me, as well.
Google, Yahoo and Vonage aren't using their pipes. The telco's own customers - the ones who pay that ratty bill every month - are the ones using the bandwidth. It isn't as if content providers are pushing the stuff down the pipes. The insidious aspect of this is that the telco