[GLLUG] Re:Network Neutrality

[Richard Houser]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

A more likely situation is what many of the oversees and I think
Canadian ISPs do.  You get a quota at a fast speed, and after you exceed
that, your overall speed drops to a lower level, but the fee stays flat.

What many US consumers (as a country, we seem to like fixed rate bills
more than other nations) would rather see is a range of service tiers
similar to this:

1.)  256kbps = $A/mo
2.)  384kbps = $B/mo
3.)  512kbps = $C/mo
4.)  768kbps = $D/mo
5.) 1024kbps = $E/mo
6.) 2048kbps = $F/mo

etc.

The only real reason we don't see this here is the unregulated
monopolies most providers have in the US.  Those carriers know that most
customers don't want the expensive offerings, so refuse to offer the
lower plans to keep revenues high.  Since they so vastly oversell their
capabilities to bring in the higher bucks, they have a problem where
they can't afford for customers to use the service they paid for, hence
the logic behind attacking typically high-bandwidth users (even though
that bandwidth was paid for).


Charles Ulrich wrote:
| 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
|>
| _______________________________________________
| linux-user mailing list
| linux-user at egr.msu.edu
| http://mailman.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHx4pmUMkt1ZRwL1MRAl97AJ4+16wYRQlIcUSL87wKKHgn2EH8FwCglgk0
pgN5yRwZ0ChIv1stYNlUJP8=
=WUDn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----