Winston Blake wrote:I just had an idea: it would be more fair to tax people extra if they use the roads for anything more than light use, e.g. driving to work, school and the shops. I don't have a car, so it wouldn't bother me. However, it would piss a lot of other people off and greatly increase the costs of freight companies, for example. Hence 'outrage' despite greater fairness.
OT - In a way, they do. Car registrations are based on size of vehicle, so trucks, etc get charged more, taxi licenses are regulated by the government, toll roads are an obvious example.
I know it's not exactly what you meant, but they're a long way to already doing it.
I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.
-Winston Churchhill
I think a part of my sanity has been lost throughout this whole experience. And some of my foreskin - My cheating work colleague at it again
Online streaming audio is indeed available on bulk capped plans; just not UNLIMITED online streaming media. I'm on 20gb a month, and I rarely hit that high, and I use a LOT of media. Of course, I'm on an ADSL1 connection of slowness.
Winston Blake wrote:I just had an idea: it would be more fair to tax people extra if they use the roads for anything more than light use, e.g. driving to work, school and the shops. I don't have a car, so it wouldn't bother me. However, it would piss a lot of other people off and greatly increase the costs of freight companies, for example. Hence 'outrage' despite greater fairness.
OT - In a way, they do. Car registrations are based on size of vehicle, so trucks, etc get charged more, taxi licenses are regulated by the government, toll roads are an obvious example.
I know it's not exactly what you meant, but they're a long way to already doing it.
There are also toll roads.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Twoyboy wrote:OT - In a way, they do. Car registrations are based on size of vehicle, so trucks, etc get charged more, taxi licenses are regulated by the government, toll roads are an obvious example.
I know it's not exactly what you meant, but they're a long way to already doing it.
Ah yes, of course. Although it would still be fairer to charge more for higher usage within each licensing bracket. Out of two identical cars, one driven twice as much does twice as much damage to the road surface, environment and traffic congestion.
Before somebody misinterprets me, I'm aware that such metering of road usage would never be feasible in practice because of the undoubtedly huge overhead costs. All analogies have limited scope.
Darth Wong wrote:Irrelevant to the question of whether they should charge by the user or by the gigabyte. If they wanted to gouge the consumer, they could simply increase their rate either way. But charging by the gigabyte is more fair, regardless of what the actual rate is.
It's definetly more fair, which is probably why I can't find any major ISPs in Edmonton that do that. Shaw has a flat rate of ~$40 per month for up to 60 GB, and if you go over that a few times they'll tell you to bump up to the next highest tier. This isn't too bad for heavy users, but the light users are getting gouged. Telus had similar, but slightly higher limits last time I checked.
"I have also a paper afloat, with an electromagnetic theory of light, which, till I am convinced to the contrary, I hold to be great guns."
-- James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) Scottish physicist. In a letter to C. H. Cay, 5 January 1865.
I would be very surprised if different companies didn't offer varying caps for grades of service. Pick the one you want from there. However, I am highly annoyed that they didn't upgrade like they were supposed to, and I wonder how this ties in with their lobbying about Net Neutrality.
بيرني كان سيفوز
*
Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est
Ender wrote:I would be very surprised if different companies didn't offer varying caps for grades of service. Pick the one you want from there. However, I am highly annoyed that they didn't upgrade like they were supposed to, and I wonder how this ties in with their lobbying about Net Neutrality.
Er, there have been major improvements in backbone capacity (and even to the DSLAM/cable-equivalent), unless you're referring to the promises of the Telecom Act.
Twoyboy wrote:OT - In a way, they do. Car registrations are based on size of vehicle, so trucks, etc get charged more, taxi licenses are regulated by the government, toll roads are an obvious example.
I know it's not exactly what you meant, but they're a long way to already doing it.
Ah yes, of course. Although it would still be fairer to charge more for higher usage within each licensing bracket. Out of two identical cars, one driven twice as much does twice as much damage to the road surface, environment and traffic congestion.
Before somebody misinterprets me, I'm aware that such metering of road usage would never be feasible in practice because of the undoubtedly huge overhead costs. All analogies have limited scope.
I hear they put a tax on petrol these days.
"I would say that the above post is off-topic, except that I'm not sure what the topic of this thread is, and I don't think anybody else is sure either."
- Darth Wong Free Durian - Last updated 27 Dec
"Why does it look like you are in China or something?" - havokeff
Whats wrong with just offering unlimited, but charging for how much data is pushed around? Maybe make the cost increase as you hit certain limits, so that first 5gb is prety cheap, but the next 3gb are a bit more expensive, and the next 2 are even more, etc.
And you could have a cap with this, but why bother, if the companies are going to be making loads of money off this system?
Vendetta wrote:Richard Gatling was a pioneer in US national healthcare. On discovering that most soldiers during the American Civil War were dying of disease rather than gunshots, he turned his mind to, rather than providing better sanitary conditions and medical care for troops, creating a machine to make sure they got shot faster.
Lusankya wrote:I hear they put a tax on petrol these days.
Bah, why did I not think of this!
Darth Wong wrote:There are also toll roads.
Which is why I said:
Twoyboy wrote:...toll roads are an obvious example.
Hawkings wrote:Whats wrong with just offering unlimited, but charging for how much data is pushed around? Maybe make the cost increase as you hit certain limits, so that first 5gb is prety cheap, but the next 3gb are a bit more expensive, and the next 2 are even more, etc.
And you could have a cap with this, but why bother, if the companies are going to be making loads of money off this system?
That's pretty much what I have. 15GB peak and 15GB off-peak built into my $79.95/month plan, then when I go over it gets charged at 0.3c per MB. Every plan in Oz has caps (as far as I know), but they all seem to deal with it in differing ways. I don't think anyone cuts you off anymore. Some charge extra per MB, some drop your speed to 64kbps, some bump you onto the next plan automatically.
I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.
-Winston Churchhill
I think a part of my sanity has been lost throughout this whole experience. And some of my foreskin - My cheating work colleague at it again
I'm just curious, and don't flame me for asking please, but if everyone is paying a premium (currently) and x customer's usage is only 8GB/month (let's say out of 30GB/month), and y customer's usage is 50GB/month... doesn't it somewhat even out with comcast/timewarner/etc still making a profit? Maybe I just don't understand the issue that the providers are having...
Winston Blake wrote:Ah yes, of course. Although it would still be fairer to charge more for higher usage within each licensing bracket. Out of two identical cars, one driven twice as much does twice as much damage to the road surface, environment and traffic congestion.
Before somebody misinterprets me, I'm aware that such metering of road usage would never be feasible in practice because of the undoubtedly huge overhead costs. All analogies have limited scope.
The UK has a congestion charge to drive in the city, based on the vehicle you own. They complain about it a lot on Top Gear.
You need a Ferrari, no, two Ferraris powersliding around a Bentley...that's also powersliding. - Jeremy Clarkson
Let's face it, a lot of us are kinda just assuming that the cap will be absurdly low; right now they're talking about 5GB limits and the like but this is not necessarily where things are going to end up. If their target is the "upper 5%" that wolf down the bulk of th ebandwidth, they'll have to put the cap a little higher.
What this means is that a lot of people, like those who play online games as part of a subscriber service, will see an increase in their monthly subscription rates as the game providers seek to keep their customers by striking a deal for a flat fee based on average use.
And a slight increase for "infrastructure surcharge" wouldn't bother me overmuch either, because even for non-heavy users we do get indirect benefits of living in a society that does a lot of business on the net. It's like the argument about the childless person who complains about having to pay taxes to schools his non-existent children never use-- regardless, he lives in a society where the people around him benefit from public education; it makes his life easier, so he has an investment, albeit indirectly, in seeing to the schools' success.
We could also just tax/charge the businesses that use high bandwidth, but they'd not pay it out of pocket-- they'd pass it on to the consumer, so in the result it's much the same.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
What this means is that a lot of people, like those who play online games as part of a subscriber service, will see an increase in their monthly subscription rates as the game providers seek to keep their customers by striking a deal for a flat fee based on average use.
Correction, you mean those who use P2P programs, download alot of media files or constantly surf. Most games use a miniscule amount of bandwidth.
Brotherhood of the Bear | HAB | Mess | SDnet archivist |
Coyote wrote:
What this means is that a lot of people, like those who play online games as part of a subscriber service, will see an increase in their monthly subscription rates as the game providers seek to keep their customers by striking a deal for a flat fee based on average use.
Online games don't have much to fear. World of Warcraft, for example, peaks at about 100MB/hr in the biggest raids in the game. If you did that 24 hours a day for an entire month it would only be 7.4GB/Month.
The "top 5% of users" are people who will happily download 20GB or more a week of pirated games, films, or TV shows.
doesn't it somewhat even out with comcast/timewarner/etc still making a profit? Maybe I just don't understand the issue that the providers are having...
There is only a certain amount of bandwidth available at any one time. If you have someone on your network with a constant high traffic rate, the service you can offer to all your other customers is degraded. Those other users will complain because they are not getting the service you have sold them.
Vendetta wrote:
The "top 5% of users" are people who will happily download 20GB or more a week of pirated games, films, or TV shows.
Because netflix, Steam, and direct2drive all all bastions of scum and villiany.
Here's a hint Vendetta, my Steam folder contains 41 gigs of games. If I have to format my computer for some reason I'm going to have to re-download that stuff. Likely what I'd do under my current system is hit download all, let it run for a day and come back once everything was done. You can easily pass 20 gigs in two days if you have large files to download.
Netflix is another good example, if I watch four movies in a month I can hit that twenty gig barrier, and why not? I pay my fee I can download what I want with no return issues.
Or as mentioned Direct2Drive. Most new video-games weight in between three to nine gigs worth. All this online delivery content will be strangled by such caps.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
In other words the conditions that made those online business models viable might no longer exist as demand outstrips bandwidth. Sorry to say it but that just might mean they're not viable businesses anymore and consumers of it suffer the consequences. I can't see anything wrong with that and can easily draw analogies from society getting too comfortable with fossil fuels or even dinosaurs and other gigantic organisms becoming too specialized for their own good in times of plenty and dying whrn the environment changes on them.
SPC Brungardt wrote:In other words the conditions that made those online business models viable might no longer exist as demand outstrips bandwidth. Sorry to say it but that just might mean they're not viable businesses anymore and consumers of it suffer the consequences.
A very apt way to say it. Kudos on the clear observation.
Something else to consider is whether the companies like Steam and Netflix will work with ISPs as partners. Just as an ISP could shut down access to certain download sources, couldn't they also say "20GB/month + unlimited streaming from our movie partner, Netflix"?
Max wrote:I'm just curious, and don't flame me for asking please, but if everyone is paying a premium (currently) and x customer's usage is only 8GB/month (let's say out of 30GB/month), and y customer's usage is 50GB/month... doesn't it somewhat even out with comcast/timewarner/etc still making a profit? Maybe I just don't understand the issue that the providers are having...
It should even out to a point. But how do you plan to keep customers out of the y group ?
Unlimited rate plans remain - very much - the minority and typically cost a premium over PAYG or minute-contract plans.
Mr Bean wrote:Because netflix, Steam, and direct2drive all all bastions of scum and villiany.
You're in the minority of users who are legitimately downloading large amounts of content on a sustained basis, then, and it remains an issue that you are using a disproportionate amount of bandwidth per month.
I live with it pretty easily now. I regularly exceed my allotment (60 gb split into 30peak/30off peak) and just buy another few gb to cover the last few days of the month.
Try finding an affordable DSL plan for a 5 person flat full of students and heavy internet users and that's not going to result in spending the last week out of every month with 5 people sharing dialup speed. Besides the problems of ISPs often failing to accurately measure useage, there is also the problem that you get charged for everything that comes in and out, legitimate traffic or not.
