Print 49 comment(s) - last by namechamps.. on Dec 21 at 1:54 PM

Genachowski's proposal allows tiered pricing
Proposed rules fall more on the ISP side than consuemr side

The FCC has been mulling over new rules and regulations for internet providers. These rules would govern how traffic that the providers carry can be regulated, and how end users and content providers could be charged. Early on it sounded as if the FCC was going to take the consumer's side, eliminate traffic throttling, and possibly even chime in on tiered offerings for end users.

The wireless and broadband industry fought the FCC on imposing rules to throttle traffic and tiered data charges. From the looks of the latest FCC proposal that has surfaced, it appears that the ball has fallen on the side of the broadband carries and wireless industry rather than on the consumer's side. FCC chairman Julius Genachowski proposed a set of rules for providers that are much more flexible for the providers than many expected.

The rules will be very flexible for the wireless industry with Genachowski noting that wireless is at an earlier stage of development. 
Reuters reports that the carriers seem pleased with how they will be able to operate under the new plan, but providers for high bandwidth offerings like Netflix and other movie streaming firms will take a hit.

The proposal is on the agenda for the December 21 meeting of the FCC. The proposal outlined will allow the ISPs around the country like Comcast and others to charge more for users who download things like movies. You can bet that the ISPs will jump on that and tiered pricing for all users will go into effect in short order if the proposal is approved at the meeting later this month.

A note to investors from Bernstein Research read, "The tacit endorsement of (usage-based pricing) is, in our view, the biggest news of the day, and must be viewed as very positive for terrestrial broadband operators."

Reuters cites a senior FCC official as stating that usage-based pricing will bring added choice and flexibility to consumers. Consumers will certainly see larger bills for things they are doing right now on the plan they already pay for with usage-based pricing. The move will certainly have an effect on consumers that are considering moving from cable to IP video for their content watching and may force some users of IPTV back to cable or satellite service.

Analyst Paul Gallant from MF Global wrote, "Depending on where the tiers were set, usage-based pricing on wireline broadband could end up deterring some people from dropping cable for over-the-top video."

The proposal by Genachowski will not seek to regulate the internet along the lines of telephone regulation. Genachowski said, "The proposed framework would prohibit the blocking of lawful content, apps, services, and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network." 

Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell said, "I am concerned that it [Genachowski's proposal] is not as bold as it should be. We need a bold plan."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I'm torn
By Spivonious on 12/2/2010 11:00:31 AM , Rating: 3
On one side, I'd like to see the internet stay "free" and have ISPs remain simple pipes through which data flows unimpeded.

On the other side, I'd like to see the government stay out of it and let the free market work. If one ISP starts charging more for access to Netflix, customers will move away from that ISP. Of course, this requires some competition to be in place, and with the cable company owning the lines, it is difficult for competing companies to emerge. I think that onces we get broader access to "4G" service, traditional ISPs will be falling over themselves to stop customers from leaving. I've already given up cable TV for streaming options. If I could pay $40/month for reliable 12Mbps down/1Mbps up service anywhere I go, I would drop my ISP immediately.

RE: I'm torn
By theArchMichael on 12/2/2010 11:33:44 AM , Rating: 2
If one ISP starts charging more for access to Netflix, customers will move away from that ISP. Of course, this requires some competition to be in place, and with the cable company owning the lines, it is difficult for competing companies to emerge.

Yeah true, but this would also require a substantial number of diligent, aware, and proactive consumers to really have an effect on companies as large as this spanning the nation. I'm not downing our nation's intelligence mind you, but I'm sure everybody here has a Nana or Pop-pop who pays $40 - $50 a month to do emails on "the Internets". Then there's all the people who aren't crunching for money that don't have the time to invest in getting a new provider and perhaps using a new technology (Clear). My ex-wife's parents changed to IP telephony like 3 years ago and until then were paying $80 a month for a landline phone with long distance packages. So, my point is, these companies may be comfortable losing the "educated" consumer, becuase they know they still have a long time to rake in the money from those less aware.

By the by, Clear is supposed to be pretty nice it gets half the speed that you said you needed though. People are really getting about 5-6Mbps though.

RE: I'm torn
By TheRequiem on 12/2/2010 12:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
I use Clear and Sprint's 4G network here in Las Vegas quite frequently and at the beginning that was true... however, over the period of a year or so, I've seen those speeds increase to about 10 - 12mbps with the added towers. Now granted, we are not a massive metropolitan area with obstructions so that might not be true for everywhere else. However, there is still thousands of people here using unlimited 4G with no problem and getting those speeds. The only two other options for internet here is Century Link and Cox Cable and I currently use Cox for home. There's not really all that much competition, but if Cox moved to cap usage, I would be gone in a heart beat and turning in my box with no questions asked. I would have NO PROBLEM having more competition come to town, not counting Verizon, which will be the only only one with actual capped Internet when it launches... dumb. Either way, if we could get a couple of start up's offering decent speed and unlimited usage over the traditional ISP's, I don't even care what the speeds are (as long as they are decent, it's 2010 so it can't be slow). I would definitely consider alternate ISP's just because I don't like cable companies...

RE: I'm torn
By sviola on 12/2/2010 11:42:22 AM , Rating: 5
The problem is that telecom market pretty much works like a cartel...

RE: I'm torn
By Kurz on 12/2/2010 10:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing is... your local Government protects these Cartels.

RE: I'm torn
By MadMan007 on 12/4/2010 2:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing is... the companies wouldn't have built any infrastructure without the local government granted mono/oligo-polies.

RE: I'm torn
By Flunk on 12/2/2010 11:48:27 AM , Rating: 2
I feel it's quite likely that this sort of legislation will just cause people to get fed up with the internet and just build a new one. One that has neutrality as one of it's core values.

RE: I'm torn
By Pneumothorax on 12/2/2010 12:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize there's NO FREE MARKET, when the cable/telco companies OWN the lines going to my house. I basically have two choices: Verizon DSL vs. Charter Cable. My buddy on the other side of town only has the DSL choice

RE: I'm torn
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2010 12:31:05 PM , Rating: 5
The problem is not that they own the lines. It's that no one else is allowed to install lines to your house even if they want to pay for it.

RE: I'm torn
By kerpwnt on 12/2/2010 2:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
It would be awesome if providers' metro-monopolies were no longer protected. It would probably be a boon for densely populated areas, but I imagine the suburbs will stay pretty stale for a long while.

RE: I'm torn
By quiksilvr on 12/2/2010 3:08:43 PM , Rating: 5
Here's hoping LTE really kicks off and we can have low-ping, fast wireless solutions. That is the ideal solution. If we can't rule the lines, RULE THE AIR (damn you, Verizon marketing!)

RE: I'm torn
By Spivonious on 12/2/2010 2:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
Which is why I put in the line about when wireless really takes off. I also must choose between cable and DSL. Recently, Clear has come into my area, and I was able to try it out through my wife's company. Coverage was spotty and speeds were around 3Mbps.

RE: I'm torn
By darckhart on 12/2/2010 2:43:36 PM , Rating: 4
Companies rarely have the consumer "best" interests at heart. They are there to sell you something. As long as they meet the minimally acceptable standards for your purchase, they don't care.

Now you claim that a company failing this will lose to another company that provides this and thus the capitalist competition model wins out. However, this is not the case when the companies collude, for example, price fixing in dram and lcd tvs.

Unfortunately there is no separate body with enough clout to oversee these things and so the government steps in.

Now with regard to this issue, it is surely in favor of the companies and not the consumer because the companies have the power now to force the consumer to accept their definition of "minimally acceptable standard for purchase."

RE: I'm torn
By Spivonious on 12/2/2010 2:48:50 PM , Rating: 1
Why should companies care about what's best? They exist to make money.

There are existing regulations that handle companies operating in ways that hurt consumers (e.g. price-fixing). There is no reason to create yet another government organization to oversee the internet.

RE: I'm torn
By gorehound on 12/2/2010 4:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
we are owned by "big content" and it is a sad day indeed.

i do not buy any big content mafiaa stuff unless i buy a used physical piece of media

tiered internet will really blow and someone will have to pay someway for this insult to all of us consumers

RE: I'm torn
By SigmundEXactos on 12/3/2010 2:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
People always say "the government should stay out" and "let the free market decide". The problem is that lack of government regulation DOES NOT IMPLY a free market.

A free market is not the lack of regulation, but a specific set of conditions (well informed consumers, good competition, ability for new players to enter the market if there are inefficiencies). You have to have certain rules (aka regulations) to create and maintain a free market (a good rule of law, public information system, lack of corruption).

For certain things, such as power, water, wired internet access, etc. There is such a thing as a natural monopoly. A natural monopoly is where it is really wasteful for a new competitor to build infrastructure (such as water pipes to your house -- if every company built one, it'll be silly and expensive). Instead, the "people" (either as a cooperative, or via the local, state, or federal government) should "own the pipes" and have everyone else compete on top of it.

My parents for example live in a small suburb of Cincinnati. They only have lines from Time Warner Cable. No dialup, no DSL, no Satellite (b/c that requires a phone line!). Just expensive Cable. They pay $30/month for 768kbps down/384kbps up, and they actually get about 400/10 (that is not a typo).

This is why we should do what australia just did or what Japan has done -- either take over the wired infrastructure or split the company and make only one of them be in charge of the infrastructure and resell it to anyone on an equal basis.

Only then will you actually get a free market.

internet > interstate highways
By Gungel on 12/2/2010 11:03:28 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not for more government involvement, but building out an Internet backbone that works like our interstate highways would go a long way to curb innovation and level the playing field.

RE: internet > interstate highways
By TheRequiem on 12/2/2010 11:27:29 AM , Rating: 3
Precisely, I cannot express enough hate for tiered pricing... goodnesss gracious, here we are, a info-centric age of exponentially growing media and internet use and they want to block it by how much we use. Great, well thanks FCC, it's not like I had any hope for what you would say or do anyways. This will definitely affect our freedom of the Internet and cause serious issues for Consumers and Businesses alike that require heavy amounts of data. QUIT CAPPING OUR USAGE!!!

By namechamps on 12/21/2010 1:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
I cannot express enough hate for tiered pricing... goodnesss gracious, here we are, a energy-centric age of exponentially growing energy consumption and they want to block it by how much we use.

Nothing wrong with per unit pricing (electricity, water, natural gas, gasoline, etc).

In "unlimited" pricing there is always a winner and loser. If the median bandwidth usage is 80GB per month. Those using <80GB are subsidizing the consumption of those who use >80GB. "unlimited" is great if you are the one using more than median but sucks for those who don't.

By theArchMichael on 12/2/2010 11:41:27 AM , Rating: 2
I agree wholeheartedly, plus if the people owned the major transmission lines and leased their use out to the ISPs this would probably increase competition amongst them. Net neutrality would be almost a moot point at that juncture. With the amount of money and tax breaks that the government provides to the current set of ISPs and also any revenue from leasing I'm sure this could have been done a few times over already.

RE: internet > interstate highways
By rcc on 12/2/2010 1:23:32 PM , Rating: 2
Why in the flock would you want to curb innovation.

Perhap you'd like to rein in prosperity while you are at it.

RE: internet > interstate highways
By bigboxes on 12/2/2010 2:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
A +6 idea if you ask me. This country needs to get off it's duff and invest in it's infrastructure. We've done it before during bad economic times and we should do it again. Our electrical grid is laughable and our broadband penetration is inequitable. Tiered pricing? Pffft.

this is what its all about
By kattanna on 12/2/2010 11:49:24 AM , Rating: 4
The move will certainly have an effect on consumers that are considering moving from cable to IP video for their content watching and may force some users of IPTV back to cable or satellite service

this is ALL about hollywood killing IPTV to ensure their continued delivery medium.

RE: this is what its all about
By Denigrate on 12/2/2010 11:56:56 AM , Rating: 2
All the "cable" channels like SyFy, HGTV, ESPN, etc should all move to offering thier content online rather than continuing to tie themselves to mass provided over priced group plans. Who really watches the Military channel? It's just one example of a channel I have to pay for if I subscribe to Satellite or Cable that I never watch.

RE: this is what its all about
By kattanna on 12/2/2010 12:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
i'd love to see that, but i dont see it happening any time soon. change doesnt seem to come willingly to people or business, and the internet is an awesome source of change, so it is resisted with full force.

it WILL happen, of that im sure.

RE: this is what its all about
By HrilL on 12/2/2010 12:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
I watch that channel sometimes but I'll never watch E or the hallmark channels. I'd say 80-90% of everyone's total channels are not watched. We should be able to chose only the channels we want.

Imagine if highways worked like this
By SeeManRun on 12/2/2010 12:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
What if Chrysler could take over part of an interstate, and on that interstate if you drive a Chrysler you are fine, but if you drive something that is not a Chrysler you have to pay a fee, of 10 cents a mile...

That is what will happen when the people owning the pipe are allowed to determine what people using the pipe pay; you can bet that Comcast services (didn't they buy NBC or something?) will have an advantage on Comcast lines over ABC or FOX.

By Spivonious on 12/2/2010 2:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
If that happened, a new road would be built right next to the Chrysler road, and people would stop buying Chryslers.

I kinda see a bright side
By Totally on 12/2/2010 10:52:12 AM , Rating: 2
Give 'em enough rope, they'll hang themselves.

FCC :[
By SurreDeth on 12/2/2010 2:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
If cable television adopted metered billing 10 years after becoming "popular" it would have died.

By LidocaineHCL on 12/2/2010 3:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
"consumers that are considering moving from cable to IP video for their content watching and may force some users of IPTV back to cable or satellite service."

Hmmm...Where do you think THAT influence came from? You don't suppose cable or satellite services were "lobbying" to influence the direction of this proposed bill, do you?

Although, I do wish they wouldn't use internet bandwidth for television/movies. I guess I'm old fashioned in that respect. I'd like the internet to remain the pipeline into which you plug your computer. I really don't need my television, toaster, refrigerator, thermostat, car, washing machine, treadmill, door-bell, cookware, etc all sending data across the internet for whatever reason (most likely data collection for marketing/advertising).

Just my brief ramble.....

Consumers have been sold out..
By errolDC on 12/2/2010 6:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
Effectively, your broadband provider can now double dip. They charge you for your connection, then they charge you extra based on the manner in which you use the connection THEN they levy additional fees on their competitors (service or content providers) if they want to deliver their (the content provider) services to customers connected to their (the network owner's) broadband network. The end result will be consumers having less choices because the network owners (understandably) do not want to make it easy for their competitors to compete! Its the same stuff that we went through when people wanted a less expensive phone services. VOIP type traffic singled out and policed in such a manner that made the quality of the service inferior to the network owner's product. The fact of the matter is that these kinds of policies are slippery slopes. You want to charge me for how much of your bandwidth I use? OK - thats fair. The Internet has always been built like that and it should stay that way. It's the Internet stupid!!

This is BS!
By 2tweeked on 12/2/2010 11:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
If big business wants a tiered Internet then build a separate IPV6 network with all the whizbang orgasmic features and leave the one we have now alone for the public.

I don't want a Internet structured to the point of satellite or cable TV with fricken website packages. Monopolies are nothing more than greedy micromanaging control freaks. God, just leave us alone, we are all ready bleeding from a thousand cuts! They push and push, I'm at the point of dropping utilities because I can't afford it anymore. Look at your phone bill with all those additional charges, $30 dollar phone bill soon its $60. I'm sick of it! Come on providers, keep fisting us and you will have nothing left.

who benefits from this
By rika13 on 12/3/2010 8:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
1. ISPs, duh: Giving out tons of bandwidth ain't cheap and half the net neutrality companies want to push their content over pipes without paying for it (youtube, netflix, etc.). This isn't paying "extra" for who/what they are, but paying for more pipe because they use more pipe.

verizon's donation PDFs

2. publishing associations: When Napster came around, the RIAA cartel saw their worst nightmare, a world where they would no longer be needed. The same for the MPAA and SAG when machinima (Red vs Blue, Avatar, etc.) rolled in. Steam, iTunes, etc. give more $$ to the artists, cost less to the consumer, and lasts forever (no more selling the same product multiple times due to lost/damaged media).

3. Brick and Mortars: less online downloading, less people not getting swindled at Best Buy

4. Democrats: more campaign $$ from ISPs, media cartels, etc. and more dead-end jobs in B&Ms to keep people down and voting socialist

By Conficio on 12/3/2010 3:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
An ISP is an ISP and not the police or the courts. So it should never be their role to determine what "lawful content, apps, services" is.

Ohterwise we will call this next year "the loophole", through which private companies (like the content industry) determine what is "lawful."

By the way an ISP can't determine what is lawful, as it is a function of sender, rights owner, and receiver, and the ISP is non of these, at best he can determine the receiver somewhat accurately (an IP adress, not the person behind the computer). For example, receiving the curruntly so popular secret State Department cables is lawful for people with the appropriate secrests clearance, but unlawful for most anybody else. How the heck is the ISP got to know based on some bits passing his network? And if he knows he is spying on all its customers way too much.

The same thing is the transfer of Music, Movie, TV, ... bits. The bits are not unlawful, the receiver might have not a license to view them or the sender might have no license to distribute them. But how is the ISP going to determine that? Also copy the entire work might be copyright enfringing, but snippets as part of a satire might be perfectly fair use. How does the ISP know?

It's a door to arbitrary ISP throttling or content suppression decissions with hardly any re-course under the law (for the individual consumer - what is she going to do sue? Use another ISP with other arbitrary [secret] rules). But its really good for an ISP to strongarm providers into pay for play games (Level3 anybody - Ooops we thought there is unlawful content in there somewhere)

Here comes my -1
By MrTeal on 12/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Here comes my -1
By djcameron on 12/2/2010 11:18:41 AM , Rating: 2
In some ways they already do this... My ISP charges me using a tiered pricing model based on my server storage and bandwidth used. My product is priced to account for my internet costs. So my customers indirectly pay for my tiered internet costs.

RE: Here comes my -1
By Cr0nJ0b on 12/2/2010 11:53:04 AM , Rating: 5
You know, I see your arguement, but I'm just not sure it's entirely correct. A cable company puts in cable to feed video to a home. That has a cost, capital and expense, for the lines and head-end equipment. They will put services on those lines and sell those services to recoup the costs and make a profit. That's business. I'm ok with that.

When it comes to data services, they essentially add another piece of head-end equipment (which has a cost) and use the same lines as video....which is much cheaper than over building a network. In 5 years, they get better network equipment and it can send 10 times for data over that line...and that new equipment will likely cost the same amount as the original equipment...and they likely would have needed to swap it out anyway. so with the progression of time and innovation of hardware, it's costing them less to send more data over the line...not more. This is happening all industries...

What i see is a basic failure of the capitalist system. it's the blind spot we have to monopolies and oligolies and such businesses that have such gigantic barriers to entry that they essentially control the market. Cable companies have competition, no doubt about it, but they aren't really competing. They don't have to...all the businesses, are just taking their cut and upping the rates. How do I know there is no competition? Because the prices are going up, not down. I can get DSL from the phone company or internet from the cable companies. that's it. In pasadena, where my sister lives she has 3 bad choices, and they are all about 30% more expensive than what I pay. but she has choice...

I'm sure I'll get flamed for taking a fairy consumer centric view, but I'm a consumer.a

RE: Here comes my -1
By ltgrunt on 12/2/2010 12:01:26 PM , Rating: 4
There's a perception that things digital are free, and being charged for them is just the corporations milking the public.

Your faulty perception is just as bad, if not worse. When I buy videos or music online, I pay the content creator, publisher, and/or distributor. Say I buy some videos on the Zune Marketplace - I've made my transaction, all is good. I shouldn't have to then pay Time Warner even more just because I'm then downloading the content that I have already paid for.

This proposal is another one of the clear indicators of corporate interests being put above the interests of consumers and the general citizenry.

RE: Here comes my -1
By rrburton on 12/2/2010 12:36:24 PM , Rating: 1
Say you bought a cd or DVD at amazon or somewhere. You've paid for the content but someone still has to pay fed ex to bring it to you

RE: Here comes my -1
By tastyratz on 12/2/2010 1:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
and your "shipping" costs are your internet provider bills in that analogy.

Someone has to pay, and that someone is and HAS been you.
What your confusing however is the business model being perverted now for more profit. If you pay for your internet for x speed at x price that is your data pipe. You are not paying for piecemeal data - nor should you. The new plans are not in consumer best interest and stifles innovation. By metering and capping services companies like comcast which may be your ONLY option in an area could stifle competition like netflix etc. which in turn promotes their own offerings.

I would venture to say this borders almost more on an antitrust issue...

RE: Here comes my -1
By mattclary on 12/2/2010 1:46:49 PM , Rating: 3
As tastyratz said, you already pay for the shipping, but now "UPS" wants to charge Newegg to transport the package to you.

RE: Here comes my -1
By MrTeal on 12/2/2010 12:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
The difference is that you're not paying Time Warner for the videos, you're paying them for the use of their service for delivery. Do you rail against Exxon for charging you for the gas used when you pick up a movie at Blockbuster that you've already paid for? That's why net neutrality is so important; what you choose to download is your own business. That doesn't mean flat-rate pricing should be some god-given right; in many market segments (like water) it's been shown that flat rate pricing encourages waste.

RE: Here comes my -1
By FITCamaro on 12/2/2010 12:40:37 PM , Rating: 1
Citizens don't have rights to the companies property. A company can charge whatever it wants.

Companies should be free to follow whatever business model they want. If they want to have tiered pricing, let them. Eventually another will come along that sees the demand for untiered access and will meet it.

Once the government gets involved though, it all goes to hell. The government is what resulted in the problems to start with. Sure maybe then cable TV would've taken longer to be deployed, but it would've been. It's not the governments job to decide which businesses succeed and which don't. Just to ensure an open, fair business environment for all businesses. Cable companies (which turned into ISPs) are the perfect example of what happens when the government does things it shouldn't. It gave them unfettered access to an areas citizens to be their sole provider. Now the people want more options but they're not allowed to have them even if other companies are willing to provide them. At least not via traditional means.

Obviously there's nothing stopping a company from creating a completely wireless ISP. Sprint did it years ago and for some reason it never took off. I know parts of Florida still have it, they just stopped taking new customers.

Hopefully with the new technology rolling out, a company will rise that will provide reasonably priced internet access over the air with good speeds. But just because people want unlimited data traffic, doesn't mean they should get it. If a company doesn't want to provide it, that's their decision. It doesn't mean the government should create a mandate that they have to. The internet is not a right.

RE: Here comes my -1
By WxDude10 on 12/3/2010 1:06:30 PM , Rating: 2

I generally agree with you that more government involvement is bad. But this situation is not as simple as having a 3rd party come in and setup their own WISP service for a number of reasons.

1. You are going to need an FCC license for some spectrum to be able to setup a wireless service. Whenever spectrum licenses are auctioned off, who do you think is first in line? Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Comcast etc. It is almost impossible for a new competitor to join the party because of the high cost of entry.

2. Say you have a license. You need backhaul capacity to your towers. 2 main ways of doing this:

Use some of your wireless spectrum for backhaul - This will not limit what speeds you can provide

Fiber/T-1/3/OCx lines to your towers - Now you are beholden to those same giants for the backhaul. Not so much of a 3rd party now.

3. If you don't have a license and you want to setup your own Fiber/copper infrastructure, you need right of way access to the poles/easements. Guess who owns these....Local power companies OR your local telephone company. Again, you are now beholden to the people you are trying to compete with.

4. The telephone companies have been given monopolies to provide service which included the telephone poles. A third party cannot compete with this.

These are SIGNIFICANT barriers to entry. The only places where you see some REAL third parties get involved is either in areas with VERY high returns on investments (Redlining even though no one will say it), Municipal owned/operated last mile networks, or rural areas where the incumbent(s if you are lucky)do not provide ANY service and there is a chance to make a business.

Now, the only entity who can change this situation is the government at various levels. Unfortunately, the federal government is already owned by the telecom/cable industries in various places. Most states are not much better. A number of states have had franchise laws rewritten to take the rights away from the towns to negotiate conditions for new deployments. The only time you see a real improvement for the customers is when the local municipality gets involved and installs their own last mile network with open access to any providers who wish to provide service across that network. When this happens, the incumbents usually start suing to get the projects killed (See Lafayette, LA)

So, it is not so cut and dried. Is usage based billing bad? Not necessarily if it is true usage based billing. Someone using 500 MB/month should pay much less than someone using 5,10,100,1000 GB/month. But that is not what we are going to get. We are not going to get real usage based billing. We are going to get the horrendously expensive wireless usage based billing. 5 GB/month for $30-60, and then overages on the order of $10/GB.

Look at the crazy stories you see about mobile data overages and look at what Canada is dealing with now. That is what the incumbents want for their wired networks in the US. Revenues/profits must keep going up even when the costs are going down/steady.

We don't have a free market. You can't become a competitor and what "competition" we are told we have is more collusion than competition. The government is the only entity who can help and as we see now, that will NEVER happen. :(

Soon it will be time to get rid of your streaming services as you will no longer be able to afford it. Which is exactly what the telecom/cable/content industries want.

RE: Here comes my -1
By Dr of crap on 12/2/2010 12:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
You condratict yourself -
If I want to download 5 movies a day off of Netflix, that should be my choice and the ISPs should allow me that without penalty . On the other hand, I should expect that downloading more movies will cost me more money . Pretty reasonable.

Why is it reasonable that I pay for the service of being able to get on the internet through a ISP, and pay a price for the service based on the speed I want. Then if I use the service to much I am asked to pay more??
The ISP's are still in the early stages of this industry.
And with electronics smaller, faster, better always happens as time goes on.
I can't believe ISP's cannot handle the amount of data that is needed from the customers. Maybe they should take some of the money they get from their customers and upgrade their network!

RE: Here comes my -1
By MrTeal on 12/2/2010 12:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't referring to penalty in the form of pricing; this was in reference to net neutrality and selective throttling. Don't penalize me (by degrading my service) for wanting to download a high bandwidth movie, just charge me for the x gigabytes and move on.

RE: Here comes my -1
By kerpwnt on 12/2/2010 1:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
With per-byte pricing, what would happen when we receive unsolicited traffic? Botnets would create high upload bills for their members and high download bills for pretty much everyone else in the world. Recipients would be forced to pay for the delivery of the spam they didn't want in the first place...

What I fear most from a non-neutral net is if ISPs decide to create a cable TV style internet service and we will have to buy bundles of websites and other services (games, skype, etc). Bundles that will be more expensive than current service and have random services tacked on that most people would never use or want.

RE: Here comes my -1
By gamerk2 on 12/2/2010 2:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
Comcast is already doing that; the Internet in the US is going to be segmented and far more expensive, when all is well and done.

"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki