The Death of The Internet?

[Bruzilla]

I agree. Just like the different levels of basic, expanded basic and digital services offered by the cable companies. The only problem ... it's hard to take something away from someone and tell them they have to now pay for it. It will be something that eventually will be overcome, but not without a loss at first.

There's nothing that says anything will be taken away. For example, my daughter had a cell phone account that made her pay the same amount ($49.95) every month, whether she used a lot of minutes or hardly any. Her current account offers a top-tier level of service of $49.95 a month that is pretty much the same as every other plan (including her old one with ATT). But her monthly billing starts at $29.95. If she only uses the phone a certain amount her bill is only $29.95. If she reaches the next level her bill goes to $39.95, and if she passes into the final tier her bill then goes to $49.95. She's still getting the same maximum level of service, and same cost, but she's not forced to pay for that level of service when she's not using it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Correct me if I have this wrong...

Instead of penalizing the rest of us, why don't they just crack down on spammers and virus buttheads? I'd be curious how much bandwidth is wasted by those punks.

...but this is what I got from the article;

Under a typical plan, a user would be allotted a limited amount of bandwidth per month, and would be charged extra fees for going over this amount. This approach isn’t very different from the software industry, where the free versions of an application are intended to frustrate and prompt people to buy the ‘better’ version.

...if I understand this correctly, it WILL hit spammers the hardest as they are using alot of bandwidth, yes?


If I understand how all of this stuff works;

What you consume, what comes down your pipe, the bandwidth you use, is measurable, yes? More or less like your water meter?

Like water, what you are 'consuming', the data has to be processed and treated like water, yes? In other words, what we consume, video, audio, text, even looking at this page, comes from somewhere, meaning it is produced, yes?

So, we have a product and we have distribution of it and we have consumption. Seems to me like a perfect combination for commerce. Want more bandwidth, more product? Buy it. Want less, as Bruz said, pay for that level.

Stay with me here. I understand, roughly, that when I look at a video online it is using more bandwidth, yes?

How much band width am I using right now, reading this thread?

Am I only using bandwidth when I send a post?

In any event, it is way less than downloading a video, correct?

So, I wanna download video, I pay for all the bandwidth and speed I want.

If reading forums and doing email uses hardly anything worth paying for, then business' can simply stay with the advertising model or a combination of pay/add. They aren't having to provide much product, so, can't justify charging the user much, but, can charge an advertising as much as the advertiser deems worthwhile in order for me to see their add.

Help me here, geeks.

 

[vraiblonde]

...if I understand this correctly, it WILL hit spammers the hardest as they are using alot of bandwidth, yes?

Probably not since the majority of spammers are either overseas and out of our jurisdiction, or they hack networks so you can't track them.


What you consume, what comes down your pipe, the bandwidth you use, is measurable, yes? More or less like your water meter?
Yes

Like water, what you are 'consuming', the data has to be processed and treated like water, yes? In other words, what we consume, video, audio, text, even looking at this page, comes from somewhere, meaning it is produced, yes?
Yes. Using the water meter analogy, if the neighbor comes and gets a drink of water at my house, I'm paying for that water, not them. I could charge them for that drink, but if I actually WANT them to come get a drink of water at my house, I'll just absorb the cost.

So, we have a product and we have distribution of it and we have consumption. Seems to me like a perfect combination for commerce. Want more bandwidth, more product? Buy it. Want less, as Bruz said, pay for that level.
It used to be that way (sort of). Then ISPs started offering unlimited access to compete with each other. Now that's the standard and they're going to have a hard time going back. And if they do, someone else will come along and start offering unlimited, and we'll be right back where we started.

Stay with me here. I understand, roughly, that when I look at a video online it is using more bandwidth, yes?
Yes - the larger the file size, the more bandwidth it uses

How much band width am I using right now, reading this thread?
Maybe a couple of k

Am I only using bandwidth when I send a post?
No. You're using our bandwidth simply by accessing this page and downloading the contents. The more smilies or image files on the page, the more bandwidth it uses.

In any event, it is way less than downloading a video, correct?
Significantly less

So, I wanna download video, I pay for all the bandwidth and speed I want.
You could, but that cost should really be put on whoever hosts the video, not the end user. They can pass it on to you in some fashion if they choose.

If reading forums and doing email uses hardly anything worth paying for, then business' can simply stay with the advertising model or a combination of pay/add. They aren't having to provide much product, so, can't justify charging the user much, but, can charge an advertising as much as the advertiser deems worthwhile in order for me to see their add.
Not sure what you mean by "advertiser". This is a simple send/receive issue.

Help me here, geeks.

Obviously when you put a website on the internet, you want people to look at it. And you want it to contain features that will attract viewers - movies, sound files, graphics, etc. If your internet provider makes it prohibitively expensive to provide that content to your viewers, you'll probably stop offering it. And now the only websites that offer these features will be larger corporations.

FoxNews.com and CNN.com aren't going to care - they have the money. Where the hit will come is in smaller companies - Somd.com, for example - and personal websites such as blogs or purely information sites.

This measure is just another attempt for big business to control the internet and push the little guy out. And that will kill the free exchange we currently enjoy and what makes the internet such a unique venue. The common man has a voice on the internet. Big business is trying to squelch that voice.