When you replace content provider fees with new network backbone company charges, and pay TV packages with traffic or website packages, this doesn’t seem so crazy, does it? [Reddit via Crunchgear]
When you replace content provider fees with new network backbone company charges, and pay TV packages with traffic or website packages, this doesn’t seem so crazy, does it? [Reddit via Crunchgear]
Brett Glass
Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 8:28 AMActually, it’s Google — which is pushing “net neutrality” regulation — that is scary.
I, as an ISP, certainly don’t want to do anything like what is depicted above. I don’t buy access to those sites one at a time (though ESPN360 is trying to force me to), and don’t want to sell it that way either. However, I do have to manage my network and prevent bandwidth hogs from harming the quality of others’ service. I also need to be able to prioritize services that need faster packet delivery — VoIP, for example. “Network neutrality” regulations would keep me from doing this. They’d also prevent ISPs in high cost areas (such as the one where I am located) from rationing expensive bandwidth so as to keep prices reasonable, thus raising prices and making many small ISPs financially unsustainable.
Cam
Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 9:25 AMIt is infinitely more preferable to have a cap on transfers per month than to have traffic shaped by service arbitrarily. I don’t understand why Internet access in the US has to be “unlimited” and then the ISP can’t actually cope with large amounts of traffic. Limit it! Give people 100 or 200GB a month. Have different priced plans with different limits! Don’t shape individual types of traffic without telling end users! This goes for wireless or fixed services alike.
Wok
Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 9:27 AMNet neutrality is a good thing. ISP’s large and small may have to adapt a little sure. I don’t care, that’s far less important than allowing someone to use their connection for whatever they want.
Rhys Kingston
Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 9:42 AMThey laugh, but I would love my internet to be limited to 256kbps after using my download quota. Also, $5 for a 2GB recharge seems a good idea :(
matt
Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 11:53 AMyou don’t pay more for electricity to power your TV than you do for the electricity to power your computer! net and web are two separate things!
net is a utility! I agree that we should pay by the GB, but not based on what we are using the net for!
Craig
Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 12:57 PMIsn’t the “worst case scenario” above slightly optimistic? Where are Telstra’s $150 per extra GB or 64k “shaped” speeds?
I totally agree with Matt here.
Charge by the GB with no caps. If you download more, you should pay more. Put in QoS for time sensitive or critical applications (VoIP, gaming, medical/emergency systems), but the price for data should be the same.
Trying to charge content providers, ISPs or consumers for higher throughput by data type is stupid. The content providers, ISPs and consumers are already all paying for exactly the same data. Putting another charge in there just reeks of telcos getting pissy about VOIP.