| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| FCC's Internet Pay-as-you-go Plan Raises Questions |
| 2010-12-08 |
| From the NSTAAFL (no such thing as a free lunch) department A provision that would allow companies to bill customers for how much they surf the Web is drawing special scrutiny. Analysts say pay-as-you-go Internet access could put the brakes on the burgeoning online video industry, handing a victory to cable and satellite TV providers. This is like arguing that making car drivers buy their gas by the gallon unfairly benefits...someone! Public interest groups say that trend will lead to a widening gap in Internet use in which the wealthiest would have the greatest access , which is rising exponentially. |
| Posted by:Anguper Hupomosing9418 |
| #19 Fine... Microsoft and its updates use up bandwidth... OpenSource is the answer. Browers ads including video ones use up bandwidth... A text based cookieless browser is the answer. Site doesn't work with a browser like that... The hell with doing biz with them... go somewhere else... |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2010-12-08 22:45 |
| #18 I like your comment- "Let the market sort it out and keep the government out of it". The government will just bugger it up. |
| Posted by: Dale 2010-12-08 21:36 |
| #17 AH, where do you live? I am aware that there is no 'free market' in the provision of internet service in the US. Oh? I can buy from the phone company or cable company. And the phone company is starting to deliver fiber to the wall. I've got alternatives, and no doubt there will be wi-fi hookup alternatives soon. Many other countries provide much faster service for a lower charge, providers there are most likely not as profitable as US providers are. And probably have more government subsidies as well as more concentrated customer markets. But those other countries also have tiered services, which cost more as more bandwidth is provided. I can already buy service by speed tier. I suppose demand for speed is probably highly correlated with bandwidth. Let the market sort it out and keep the government out of it. The USPS or Fed Ex? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-12-08 20:49 |
| #16 Bandwidth above a minimum should be charged by usage. Respectfully this is bull. Bandwidth should be charged in anyway the provider wants to. |
| Posted by: Alan Cramer 2010-12-08 20:15 |
| #15 I see no reason that I should pay for the kids down the block who continuously download video. Bandwidth above a minimum should be charged by usage. |
| Posted by: KBK 2010-12-08 20:06 |
| #14 I'm assuming that the $ I send to Comcast each month for my Broadband is used for: 1) Infrastructure Maintenance 2) Infrastructure *Expansion* 3) Services (the helpdesk guys, installers, janitors, Network people, etc...) 4) Profit to Comcast Shareholders And yes - Comcast Broadband does have a per-month limit (which I've even exceeded a couple of times). I'm not getting broadband for free - I'm *paying* for it. No free lunch here. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-12-08 18:05 |
| #13 #12 -- providing bandwidth costs $, it is not free. Any ISP must have a saturation point, where the data demanded by its customers overwhelms the capacity of the ISP. At that point service slows or stops unless & until the ISP upgrades its capacity, which nearly always costs them $. Up to recently, run-of-the-mill ISP customers haven't demanded that much, however online video demands promise to swamp the ISPs as more and more users download more and more material. The FCC has actually been 'discouraging' ISPs from billing by the byte in an obvious fashion. My ISP (AT&T) provides several levels of service stratified by download speeds, IMHO this is billing by the byte under a different label. Only FCC and competitive pressures have prevented ISPs from doing that in a straightforward manner. I am aware that there is no 'free market' in the provision of internet service in the US. Many other countries provide much faster service for a lower charge, providers there are most likely not as profitable as US providers are. But those other countries also have tiered services, which cost more as more bandwidth is provided. 'Networks are not bound by the rules of scarcity' is an example of free-lunch thinking. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-12-08 17:40 |
| #12 I'm not sure where the free lunch is. Who is preventing the phone company from charging by the byte now? Why should the FCC be able to force them to start? Let the cable and phone companies fight it out in a free market, not a game rigged by the one who gets control of the regulator. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-12-08 17:03 |
| #11 Nice to hear from the Free Lunch crowd here on the 'Burg. I didn't know there were so many of you. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-12-08 16:10 |
| #10 What will happen is Microsoft's and others stealth updates will use all the base internet quota... |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2010-12-08 12:49 |
| #9 A lot of people are switching from Cable and Satellite to broadband services like Netflix, and Hulu. *That* is where this idea is coming from. Ironically my 7 YO son's favorite show now is, of all things, 'Lost in Space' from the 60's. He knows it's old, fake, and just plain silly - but its more entertaining than most of the crap on cable today - and he doesn't get preached at. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-12-08 12:10 |
| #8 I've seen a lot of video ads lately. Perhaps we would need to go back to text only browsers? |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2010-12-08 12:00 |
#7 On the other hand, exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely. Maybe after it breaks, we'll fix it. Nice that you cited all that evidence... oh, wait, you didn't. No evidence at all. Weird. It's like you're talking out your ass or something. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2010-12-08 09:49 |
| #6 To tax something you have to know how much of it there is. |
| Posted by: notascrename 2010-12-08 09:27 |
| #5 Those of you NOT paying by the byte should talk to your friends on HughesNet and see how much they like it. In a word, it sucks. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2010-12-08 08:04 |
| #4 FCC is becoming a tyrant. I don't want their dirty, nasty paws anywhere on the internet. Another "department" we could axe overnight. |
| Posted by: newc 2010-12-08 06:48 |
| #3 Networks are not bound by the rules of scarcity like highways. Your provider's network won't even notice if you sit around all day watching youtube videos. Paying by the byte is a horrible idea. |
| Posted by: gromky 2010-12-08 05:43 |
| #2 It's not broke, don't fix it. On the other hand, exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely. Maybe after it breaks, we'll fix it. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-12-08 01:48 |
| #1 I'd rather not pay per byte just like long distance. What happens when someone leaves the streaming news on and ur bill is $400? It's not broke, don't fix it. |
| Posted by: Jeremiah Flainter9609 2010-12-08 01:43 |