Monday, June 16th 2008
Charging by the Byte to Curb Internet Traffic
Not everyone uses the internet for the same purposes. Some simply check their e-mail and/or scan the news for the latest headlines and promptly log off, while others download gigabytes of data every day, if not every hour. For years the internet was an egalitarian service with both types of users paying an equal amount despite the amount of bandwidth they used. Now it seems the major ISPs are preparing to implement some form of bandwidth limiting for users that utilize the most. Earlier this month Time Warner cable began a trial program of "Internet metering" in one Texas city. Customer will be asked to select a monthly plan with a certain amount of allotted bandwidth. When a user exceeds the bandwidth of their plan he or she will be forced to pay a surcharge, similar to exceeding the allotted minutes of a cell phone plan. The same week Time Warner announced its plan Comcast announced that it will be expanding its plan to manage Internet traffic, which involves slowing down the connections of the heaviest bandwidth users. While, as of yet, AT&T places no restrictions on bandwidth they stated that limits on heavy use were inevitable and are considering pricing based on data volume. The three companies insist these forms of billing will insure fair access to the internet for all users. Critics of the bandwidth limits say that metering and capping network used could hold back the inevitable convergence of television, computers, and the Internet. Internet metering could have serious consequences for companies such as Blockbuster and Netflix who are providing more and more downloadable/streaming content.
When asked how many gigabytes an average customer uses, Time Warner would only reveal that 95 percent of customers use under 40 gigabytes per month. This means that 5 percent of customers use more than 50 percent of the network, and it is assumed that many of those people are sharing copyrighted video and music. Only time will tell whether these bandwidth limiting plans will provide fair internet access to everyone like the ISPs insist or whether they will stunt the growth of the internet economy. It seems that bandwidth limiting is here to stay and will most likely get worse, at least for the time being.
Source:
The New York Times
When asked how many gigabytes an average customer uses, Time Warner would only reveal that 95 percent of customers use under 40 gigabytes per month. This means that 5 percent of customers use more than 50 percent of the network, and it is assumed that many of those people are sharing copyrighted video and music. Only time will tell whether these bandwidth limiting plans will provide fair internet access to everyone like the ISPs insist or whether they will stunt the growth of the internet economy. It seems that bandwidth limiting is here to stay and will most likely get worse, at least for the time being.
143 Comments on Charging by the Byte to Curb Internet Traffic
This is something i mentioned earlier: telstra tried this in australia - other companies decided it was profitiable to build their own networks and work on their own rather than be smothered by them, and we're now benefiting from competition. This will happen in the USA as well... no matter how many ISP's introduce throttling and shaping, some businiess will always offer an alternative if they think they can make a profit.
This thread is getting worse than the ATI vs Nvidia ones, or AMD vs intel - some very arrogant people are complaining that they should get an even better deal than they have without any effort on their part. If you dont like it, complain to the ISP, write letters to congress and attend protests. bitching in an online forum will not get you anything.
I am done with this thread, unless something more interesting than useless flames comes up.
I'm sorry to assume things, but you're talking like one of those people that uses the " free market" excuse for everything.
A corporation is given the privilege to operate by the government. Its a privelege, not a right. Thats the way it started out. Unfortunately people don't see it that way anymore. :(
Corporations are given more rights than an individual thanks to the laws passed over the years by corrupt politicians. ~See The Corporation
Many corporations are good though. The ones that abuse the people should be regulated or fined, since its a privilege.Its called an exchange of ideas. Its fine with me if someone tells me something I don't agree with. I try to explain why I don't feel the same way rather than call people arrogant and insist they do nothing but bitch. Without effort would be living in the status quo and being a hive mind without questioning the ethics of those that control a good portion of your life.
I know you question policies..... atleast some of them. Don't be "hands off" with corporations and the treatment of their customers. To stand up for the individual is what governments are for. Thats what governing is.
I'm going to raise hell with my ISP if they start this limiting usage crap. I get what I pay for, and this is just going to be another way for them to take MORE of MY money that I WORKED for, Its not right and I dont see why you say its a conspiracy theory because DaedalusHelios said the ISPs want more money,they do:shadedshu! Here in america companys try to screw over the people/customers as much as possible:mad: and theres a name for it: Capitalism:mad: I'm not saying capitalism is bad but it is abused.
Thats what they are trying to impose on the internet. Its not like you using your cell phone an hour longer each day costs them close to the $800 you would pay in overage. They sneak this stuff in the fine print of your contract as "fees may apply".
Gam
HHHHMMMMMMmmmm why don't we have better and unlimited access to the internet at those prices??? Since we pay the most for telecommunications in the world????? Greed maybe? But greed should never be regulated.... no matter what it does to the individual because its the right of corporations to do whatever they want. Or is it?
The real question is who will stand up for the individual? If the government doesn't, who will? Nobody would. And right now, nobody is.