[GLLUG] Re:Network Neutrality
Charles Ulrich
charles at bityard.net
Thu Feb 28 00:24:47 EST 2008
I sure hope not. My broadband usage fluctuates like crazy. Some months
I don't use my connection for anything but email, web browsing, and
doing classwork. Other months I'm torrenting Linux distros or
migrating a bunch of data off-site to my colocated server.
I, like many consumers, would rather have a relatively consistent
month-to-month service bill because it makes balancing the budget so
much easier. It also means you're not in a position where you've
suddenly used up your bandwidth quota in the middle of the month and
then have to be extra-careful about which sites you visit. A errant
youtube link or auntie's entire collection of summer vacation photos
could wind up costing you $15 more than it would two weeks later.
Metered access is one of the main reasons I don't own a cell phone.
Nobody, and I mean _nobody_ offers an affordable flat-rate plan. If
all the broadband ISPs went to this, I would be pressing my 56K
external serial modem back into service.
Charles
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Brent Barker <b.w.barker at smokejive.net> wrote:
> Wouldn't it make more sense to go to a pay-per-byte plan for users?
> That would not penalize those who use the internet once a week to
> check email (in fact, it would be a good deal cheaper), and would
> charge a fair price to those who like streaming media.
>
> --Brent
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Clay Dowling <clay at lazarusid.com> wrote:
> > Last I checked, Google does pay for all of their traffic. They buy
> > network connectivity from their providers, who for that money are
> > obligated to provide a certain amount of bandwidth to Google.
> >
> > Likewise, as an end user I buy bandwidth from Comcast. For my money,
> > Comcast is obligated to provide me with a certain amount of bandwidth.
> > Comcast has a couple of options if I go over that amount. They can cut
> > off my access, or they can charge me an additional fee for the additional
> > bandwidth that I used. They can then use that money to upgrade their
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > The multi-tiered internet scheme is a shakedown. It's the big business
> > version of the old protection rackets. If any service providers try this,
> > I hope to see them badly burned by the courts.
> >
> > Clay
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Andy Lee wrote:
> > >>>> "Brendan Bartlett" <brenbart at gmail.com> 2/27/2008 10:47 AM >>>
> > > Where is the error in my logic?
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, your toll road example is a good one, but you are wrong on how
> > > it works. Trucks and busses do pay more, because they use it more. They
> > > take up more space, and inflict more damage on the pavement, so the cost
> > > to get down the road is higher.
> > >
> > > As much as I want my provider to never get in the way of getting to
> > > content, I also understand the importance of quality of service. There is
> > > no way we could run voice video and data over our WAN without setting
> > > preference to certain types of data. Treating every bit the same isn't
> > > viable with the long term goals people have for the net, but saying all
> > > file sharing is bad isn't the option either. Definitely a problem for the
> > > network engineers to fix, not the legislators.
> > >
> > > -- Andy
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > linux-user mailing list
> > > linux-user at egr.msu.edu
> > > http://mailman.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lazarus Registration
> > http://www.lazarusid.com/registration.shtml
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-user mailing list
> > linux-user at egr.msu.edu
> > http://mailman.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user
> >
> _______________________________________________
> linux-user mailing list
> linux-user at egr.msu.edu
> http://mailman.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user
>
More information about the linux-user
mailing list