[Y!] Using the Web might get a lot pricier - Page 9 - Overclock.net

B-80 · 01-12-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by urgrandpasdog

I've got 6meg download 768k upload DSL for $35 a month, no caps.... yet.

The only thing we can (hopefully) count on is competition between companies. Imagine if every ISP had caps and throttling and ridiculous pricing etc., then all of a sudden a company showed up and started charging decent prices for good service and no caps, everyone in their right mind would switch to said company.

I know that's an "extreme" example, but the only thing that keeps prices as low as they are is competition between companies. Imagine what intel CPU's would cost if AMD went out of business, for instance.

That will never happen, companies are too greedy. Cell phones are the same way, pay for usage. why hasnt there been a cell phone company that will offer an unlimited 50-60 dollar a month plan. surely everyone would switch.

aod2002 · 01-12-09

If a bunch of ISP's decide to do this I imagine it will only cause more problems for them.

thiussat · 01-13-09

You know how much it costs ISP's to deliver 1 GB of backbone traffic? Right now it's at about 5 CENTS per GB. And they want to charge us $1 per GB. What's that, a 2000% mark-up? It's just as bad as the cell phone racket.

Arkanor · 01-13-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by VulcanDragon

God, I hate when people say ignorant/jealous crap like this. The fact that the US has enjoyed a more consumer friendly all-you-can-eat model and you have not does not mean we should sit quietly by while we get dragged down to your level of service. You should be complaining to your local governments that your service levels suck and are anti-consumer compared to other countries, not tap dancing that the most consumer friendly model around is being burned to the ground.

Pay-as-you-go (at a reasonable price) would arguably be the most consumer friendly model, and the most fair. Problem is, ISP's aren't offering that, they're offering comparatively much higher priced options than we're used to for fixed levels of bandwidth.

Someone who uses 5GB per month shouldn't need to pay the same as someone using 500.

Chranny · 01-13-09

Mmmm....Unlimited bandwidth for $60.

*VulcanDragon* · 01-13-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkanor

Pay-as-you-go (at a reasonable price) would arguably be the most consumer friendly model, and the most fair. Problem is, ISP's aren't offering that, they're offering comparatively much higher priced options than we're used to for fixed levels of bandwidth.

Someone who uses 5GB per month shouldn't need to pay the same as someone using 500.

I disagree that that is consumer friendly...an attempt to be equitable perhaps, but not necessarily "friendly". Making things as simple as and as transparent as possible is what I consider friendly. Do you enjoy having to track how many minutes you've used on your cell phone...or whether you're on your network or roaming...or whatever...or do you only care because you're basically forced to so that you don't wind up spending a small fortune without realizing it? For most of us, it's the latter.

So I return to my original argument. Recognizing that bandwidth is not a permanently consumable resource, it does not cost the ISP any more money to let someone run at full speed than it does to throttle them as long as bandwidth is available at that point in time. Therefore, for equity's sake, throttling heavy users during congested periods is eminently fair to everyone. But if the network is NOT being slammed, there is no reason NOT to let your customer utilize the bandwidth. And there is no reason to limit how much data a user transfers as long as he is forced to play within those network-management rules. No reason except to squeeze more money out of them, that is.

woodpigeon4 · 01-13-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicious_fishes

oh no, download limits you say ? however will anyone survive...

If that was meant to be sarcastic it was an incredibly poor attempt. Downloading a few games on steam will put you over the average cap, not to mention anything else you may download.
Anyway, moving on, I'm so glad my broadband is uncapped, and it had better stay that way!

bruestle2 · 01-13-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkanor

Pay-as-you-go (at a reasonable price) would arguably be the most consumer friendly model, and the most fair. Problem is, ISP's aren't offering that, they're offering comparatively much higher priced options than we're used to for fixed levels of bandwidth.

Pay as you go is hardly user friendly. Think of it like an average person for a moment, you don't know what bandwidth is at all and you really don't know what a GB is.

All you know is that if you use more, you are going to pay a lot more. So, you will check your e-mail less, you will browse the web less you will do everything less because you think that every time you get on the internet you are going to be charged large amounts because you know you are getting charged $.50 for GB...but you don't recognize the difference in bandwidth between a "heavy user" and somebody who is just browses the web a lot and uses almost no bandwidth.

No, consumers like fix-rate plans. I pay X dollars for internet a month, and that is it, no strings, no fees, nothing...that is all I ever get charged for reliable service for a month.

Note: If you really think the average person knows what a GB is, start a survey and ask people what a GB is...you will be very shocked. I run a computer help desk for my school, and we will bring up the bandwidth limits we have at school, which are somewhat reasonable. People tell me they will check their e-mail less, so it will be OK with the limits. A very small percentage of the general public knows what a GB is.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Industry News > Software News
[Y!] Using the Web might get a lot pricier

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)