What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
523 Comments
- TSCheredar, on 10/21/2009, -3/+654Ok, that's a crock of *****. I know the ISPs *say* it's unavoidable due to the cost of maintaining the network but that's absolute *****. They run ***** business strategies. Anyone still using Comcast's email service? How many of you would rather use a Tivo than those ***** boxes given to us by the cable providers? And have you seen the "OnDemand" rental pricing as compared to what you can OUTRIGHT PURCHASE online via amazon or iTunes?
Those models are for the service providers to make money by taking advantage of owning the ability to deliver the data. It's *****. It hinders innovation, economic development and burdens the customers with the cost of making things better.
ISPs: when you provide me with the "Dumb pipe" of information -- and NOTHING MORE, we'll talk about what it costs for you to maintain and improve your service networks.
Otherwise, I suggest you STFU before the FCC really slams down on your tyrannical asses. - iamacea, on 10/21/2009, -3/+572Hopefully they don't get their way.
- seledoux, on 10/21/2009, -5/+423lame.
- thegamingguy, on 10/21/2009, -11/+338I would be a little (I do mean a little) bit more interested in this IF and ONLY IF they get my service up to the standards of other countries in terms of speed and stability.
- doctechnical, on 10/22/2009, -3/+285I'm usually a very free-market capitalist kind of guy but this is such a BLATANT attempt to gouge the consumer that it pegs the needle on my ***** meter.
No where in this article did anyone claim that the ISPs were running out of bandwidth or that there was some looming problem - "Dear god, we're only 300 LOLcat videos away from total fiber meltdown!"
And if they are going to put a meter on bandwidth they had DAMNED well better commit to a real, honest, 24x7 bandwidth delivery rate and honor that. Right now all we have are weasel-words like "Up to xxx mb/s" and piles of disclaimers. The electric comany has a meter on my power, and they commit to delivering 200 amps at the breaker box. The ISPs had better do the same and be accountable for it.
/rant - netburnr, on 10/21/2009, -6/+200This is total BS. The major carriers are handling LESS traffic. 60% of all traffic is handled by "peers", groups of companys directly connected to each other using cross connects in the various large data centers.
http://bit.ly/34vqLu - zbeast, on 10/22/2009, -2/+190Don't worry, they wont. They are more interested in the cell phone model.
Where you buy a device that you pay $60 to $150 dollars a month to use but you don't use it
because your afraid of it costing you even more. - megamod, on 10/21/2009, -4/+182I feel like this digging the article but burying the content in disapproval...wish there was something like this.
- Disgod, on 10/22/2009, -8/+180Other countries businesses: "How can we provide a great service and still make a profit"
US Business: "How can we ***** over the customer to make ourselves richer, while maintaining the ***** possible service that can barely be called a service" - FishThePirate, on 10/22/2009, -1/+166This would basically kill the Internet as we know it, weakening it to the point that it's a joke. It would no longer grow and it would become another vapid *****-hole like television.
- mikemehak, on 10/21/2009, -18/+156this is probably one of the few things that could seriously curb pirating. Albeit somewhat inadvertently.
Personally I wouldn't download nearly as much if it cost me per GB.
However, there is a lot of data intense legit stuff I download as well. nix distros, etc...
I hope this doesn't happen any time soon. - breakbread, on 10/22/2009, -1/+136What the ***** is this, 1995?
- BlackJackJester, on 10/22/2009, -3/+125"10% of customers use 90% of bandwidth." (Not FTA, but I'm pretty sure that's been said somewhere) Means that 90% of people are paying absurd amounts of money for what they use. I'd guess most people in that 90% use only 1 or 2 GB/month checking email, and the occasional youtube video. So they are paying $30-40 per GB. The ISP's are perfectly happy with this model. They will keep these people as long as they can. 9 out of 10 people don't use their fair share, and are charged for it.
Assume: 'fair share' is $1 per GB. using this example, ISPs are robbing people $39/month. 39GB x 9 = 351GB that is paid for and unused. Basically, if that one in 10 uses more than 350 GB, he is 'overusing', but I'd venture that less than .1% of people use that much bandwidth. Seeing how caps are pretty low on capped internet, they want people to pay for bandwidth they never use.
Why did cell carriers go with flat monthly fees over metered usage? Because you make more money that way. If ISP's switch to meters, they'll lose truckloads of money on their cash cows. This means they'll do as much as possible to keep low users on flat rates and power users on metered access.
I bet time-warner's wet dream is "$40/month for the first 10GB, then $1/GB for everything above", all in the name of "THE TUBES ARE CLOGGING". No they're not. Bandwidth is dropping in price faster than prom dresses to them. South Korea gets 50MB/s downstream to the home for something like $20/month, no cap. ISP's are full of *****. - dmcbride6, on 10/22/2009, -2/+120"We can't/won't/never did provide the service we already advertised...so we need to ask for more money to dig us out of the ditch we purposely jumped into years ago."
There...fixed.
Don't be fooled people...this is to stop you from using your internet to replace the other services they provide. - ivanmarsh, on 10/22/2009, -1/+118Brought to you by the same criminal idiots who said no one will ever need more than 1.5mps access.
Why do people still use AT&T for anything? - yocouchdigga, on 10/22/2009, -2/+98"Dear god, we're only 300 LOLcat videosaway from total fiber meltdown!" - Awesome line and I could not agree more, this whole thing really chaps my ass.
- akchrs, on 10/22/2009, -3/+99Yet doesn't AT&T charge 20 cents for a text message that actually costs something like 200 times less than that. Maybe AT&T can charge what it actually costs to send a text.
- yocouchdigga, on 10/22/2009, -6/+101BULL-*****-*****.
That is all. - iamnobody8614, on 10/22/2009, -2/+92shhhhhhh...
- inactive, on 10/22/2009, -1/+88The thing is, they don't need to make it illegal. There is very little competition in local broadband markets.
- ronintetsuro, on 10/22/2009, -1/+82It's called Monopoly.
/angry ATT user that got bumped from 6MB service to 1.5 for moving into a different apartment in the same complex... less than 300 yards away. - brbubba, on 10/22/2009, -2/+75Not only that, but bandwidth cost has gone down over the years. I think this is really an issue of these companies seeing minor hits in their profit margins, so they scream bloody murder. In reality though bandwidth will eventually cost next to nothing.
Of course I still don't see how in the hell this isn't an antitrust violation, using market dominance to create an unfair pricing structure. If there was actually a real alternative in these markets I would say go for it, but seeing as they are a monopoly in most of their markets this concept is ridiculous. - tbttfox, on 10/22/2009, -2/+74Reminded me of this comic.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/5/1/
"Sir, You're technically paying for UP TO 30 megabits"
"When my bill comes, I'll pay UP TO the full amount" - tomjm5000, on 10/22/2009, -2/+69Thankfully, big corporations rarely have their way in public policy.
- inactive, on 10/22/2009, -2/+65What a bunch of liars. Asian countries have bandwidth 50x as fast as us. They are just under pressure from the record companies.
- aurorous, on 10/22/2009, -1/+64Uh yea... I think I'll go ahead and call ***** on that... read this...
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/the-cost- ... - mattluiz, on 10/22/2009, -3/+65Until the ONE ISP that doesn't do it and everyone flocks to them. Pay-as-you-go will never work.
- dman24752, on 10/22/2009, -1/+61Dear ISPs,
My ass is already sore from you ***** me with your overpriced, slow connection. You already have an oligopoly. Stop ***** me in the ass or we're going to do whatever it takes to introduce real competition into the market or have a government takeover.
Sincerely,
The American Internet User - toxicshok, on 10/22/2009, -0/+56No that's how it is in all countries, but in the US we stop telecommunication giants from competing so they don't' have to do *****.
- Paranor01, on 10/22/2009, -4/+60you just wake up after a 200yr nap or something?
- jorgio, on 10/22/2009, -1/+57In the land of pay as you go internet, the unlimited plan reigns king.
- SPECOPS, on 10/22/2009, -0/+54@ mikemehak - It's ironic you say this will curb piracy, it will also curb the new distribution model of content as well (e.g. Hulu, iTunes, Neflix streaming, etc.). Which is why they are all AGAINST neutrality as well, so they can then provide "free" GBs to business partners. Imagine the utopia they have in store for us! Stream from Netflix online = $98.46, download some HD content from iTunes, $52.99, but if you stream from our partner, Blockbuster.com, no charge - sign up today!
- baronsmeg, on 10/22/2009, -2/+54so if they do this could we sue them if we continue to see ads when we surf? and if so doesn't that break the internet?
- Klisk, on 10/22/2009, -1/+52True... Realistically.
But look at the charges for text messages. A single text message is, what, 40 cents or so outside of an unlimited plan? You know the bits aren't worth that much.
An ISP will -- Really -- Likely charge an additional 20 dollars or so per gigabyte, if not more once you go "over" your "gigs".
Essentially they want the internet to have "minutes". - po43292, on 10/22/2009, -0/+50Digging for awareness purposes only.
- tomjm5000, on 10/22/2009, -0/+49That literally may have been the most sarcastic thing I have ever said. I don't think it needed a damned /S TAG!
- midnitefox, on 10/22/2009, -4/+51I seed. Because I'm not a dick.
- mrsteveman1, on 10/22/2009, -1/+46Even pirates don't use enough data transfer to incur a large bill each month. The true cost of a GB from an edge network over the backbone to another edge network is on the order of pennies not dollars.
- ronintetsuro, on 10/22/2009, -0/+45***** you ISP's
You will birth the shadownet and make yourselves irrelevant. Have you learned NOTHING from MPAA/RIAA bungling? If not, fine by me, dinosaurs die so higher life forms can live on. - linkjuice, on 10/21/2009, -6/+51This is the kind of thing that makes the innovation that comes with the internet shine through - someone will figure out a way around this, Skype style.
- SumoSniper, on 10/22/2009, -2/+47The issue is more that at any telco board, when someone says "Chaps, we've got a problem. The population is rising, more people are using our services. What do?" The responses are:
"Raise prices!"
"Reduce service!"
And anything else that means they have to supply less.
The new guy who says "Why don't we invest in more bandwidth?" Gets laughed right out of the meeting. - hankidic, on 10/22/2009, -0/+43If it was in my area I'd have it by now... :-(
- ultar6, on 10/22/2009, -3/+46Right. Just like pay-as-you-go telephone service was the only way to do it. Just like pay-as-you-go video rentals now dominate. Just like Micro$lop wanted to introduce pay as you go subscription software services.
This whole thing is a crock. This is about Internet providers trying to create new revenue streams without actually providing something extra. Internet providers want to be able to charge companies for expediting traffic from these companies' websites. Essentially, they want to offer up their bandwidth to the highest bidder while continuing to charge individual subscribers as if nothing has changed.
Their claim is that bandwidth is a finite resource that is becoming scarce and therefore must be doled out according to "free-market" principles. First they'll charge websites to up their traffic in priority. If they get that, they'll wait a few years, then claim they need to charge subscribers more based on their usage. - xaeropain, on 10/22/2009, -0/+43Funny how the rest of the world figured out how to handle increased demand without pay as you go...
- DeathRay2K, on 10/22/2009, -0/+43It could. It won't.
- commenter01, on 10/22/2009, -5/+47i think your comment needed the /s tag
- EliteBeat, on 10/22/2009, -1/+42That's nice in theory but wont ***** happen.
Look at the cell phone companies. Where is the one provider charging fair rates and not trying to ***** you over? Where are the cable TV companies that offer ala carte, so people will flock to them? - eclectro, on 10/22/2009, -1/+41"Why do people still use AT&T for anything?"
Because the government needs somebody to spy for them? - DarkStar3333, on 10/21/2009, -2/+42They need to understand and split the concept of service and content before I can support any sort of UBB, it needs to be fair for everyone.
Since everything should be considered the bits across a network it opens up doors to justify breaking down the non existant barriers when it comes to infastructure.
> Cable packages would be eliminated instead opting for a IPTV OnDemand model. The concept of forcing people to watch content on your schedual is dead. HDTV would no longer carry a premium price at retail.
> The concept of cell/landline phone voice minutes/data and long distance should be eradicated.
Thus I should be able to roll my TV, Phone and internet traffic under a single number and from a local network or national backbone perspective all traffic is the same.
Now when you seperate the content providers (entertainment products) from the providers (bandwidth and infastructure) how much would content providers have to pay per day to get content out to its subscribers? Assuming the current UBB pricing "structure" they couldn't.
In order to run there business the cost per MB would have to come down to obtainable levels not only for distribution but also for consumption. - AngryDeuce, on 10/21/2009, -1/+38Of course they do, the ISPs stand to make even more money that way.
Lets see a show of good faith on the ISPs end first...how about getting fiber across the country out of the massive profits you pull down now before you ask us for MORE money to maybe do it... -
Show 51 - 100 of 537 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is