Exactly. Your neighbors who don't use Netflix' Comcast bill won't have to. You pay for your excessive usage.
Certainly. Charge everyone who uses a significant percentage of their infrastructure. Yes, they should charge (if it was "over" you wouldn't have the service) you for basic service. If you want them to charge by the bit, so be it. The universal hatred of that model is pretty clear with cell service. The bottom line is that someone is going to pay for Netflix'bandwidth. I find it preferable that people who use the bandwidth pay for the bandwidth.
I don't see the difference. Either way, the big users are paying for their share. IMO the cell model is broken (though by necessity). It will kill the Internet. Certainly any streaming.
Exactly.
That's the cell model. IMO, it's a crappy model. I don't use any streaming over cell because they do this sort of thing.
So it's charged to Netflix who turns around and charges those who use their service. What's not to like?
When I started using the Internet, I was paying by the minute. I bought a second, flat-rate, line for the computer. My voice line continued to be by the minute.
How is it a problem to it as it is today? The users get charged for the product. What's not to like?
...and they should pay for it. ...or more precisely, their users should pay for it. Charging the service provider is an easy way to show what the service really costs the end user.
That's what everyone is bitching about. They want something for nothing.
You guys are all missing the real issue. The feds want to TAX the internet as a utility regulated by the FCC. Just like the wireline pstn that are shrinking because of cell and internet services.
Damn it all to f*ck!! I really HATE that background babble when one is supposedly reading text. The pictures above the text seem to be constantly changing as well, thank screen size for keeping that shit invisible.
I don't know about that. In the UK at least the cell based coverage for
3G and in cities for 4G is holding up pretty well. I actually think it would make more sense for the internet have nots to be provided with directional 3G antenna that lay down a ribbon of roadside coverage.
An analogy that the people who are railing against paying might be able to understand is that network water pressure would fall disastrously if everyone insisted on turning on every tap in the house simultaneously.
My 3G at home is 5Mbps and faster than my wired ADSL 4Mbps. I have been toying with the idea of a directional antenna and having a 20Mbps 3G connection to the local base station instead of ADSL. Recent service improvements have put this on the back burner but it is possible.
An alternative is to pay a distant neighbour to get an FTTC ADSL service and use a line of sight microwave link to bridge it. I am wary of how much climbing up and down his barn might be needed for this.
Seems reasonable to me.
I thought in the USA local phone calls were free so the internet on dialup was essentially free there (as it also was in Hull in the UK).
Something for nothing (or at least for the fixed price contract) is OK provided that the demand is not excessive. But everyone suffers if the exchange backhaul is swamped by endless video on demand sessions.
It was never a problem on a geeks only 56k modem but it is on FTTC
75Mbps which is three orders of magnitude faster and to most end users.
Traffic shaping is probably the way forward but the punters will squeal!
Actually, they could use a delivery model like Fedex. The recipients of Internet data pay nothing. All the costs are borne by the content providers. Then Comcast would have to provide service to everyone as would all the other delivery services. Lots of duplication.
Yeah, that's what they should do. Like Fedex. You pay to have your bits delivered to the end user. The rest of us pay nothing.
What does consumer choice have to do with it?
Wait, that's more like the phone companies. You pay for placing calls and on cell phones anyway, you pay for receiving calls. Hmmm... like what crazy is suggesting.
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 4:09:10 PM UTC-5, Jon Elson wrote: < Most of the
Most of the US, or most of the population? The FCC releases an annual report on competiveness in both wireless and cable. I don't recall reading or hearing anything about large swaths of populations served by only one provider. That's certainly true if you include satellite companies (which I gather is not what you're saying).
That said, "yes", there are places where competition is minimal or maybe even non-existent, but it's not as big a problem as one might imagine.
Don't forget --- another problem carriers (cable, wireless, etc..() have to deal with is the explosion in data consumption. It is not possible to upg rade an entire network at once (having thousands of nodes), nor it is econo mically viable at the outset. This equipment, and throughput capability, i s amortized. It's the same issue as with underseas fiber optic cables - ta kes YEARS to make a profit.
THAT's why everyone's got their hand out!!
And of course, another problem is whether the equipment vendors can even ro ll enough product off their assembly lines in a reasonable period of time t o support such expansions.
I wonder what will happen when super-high res 4D (HDTV) video takes hold?
The people who pay Comcast for bandwidth is their customers. I pay for
50 mbps; I get about 10.
They are certainly not going to charge themselves for content. Comcast is, in most places, a monopoly regulated utility, like electricity and water. Only one company gets to dig up the streets and provide cable here.
Comcast is in the business of delivering content. They need content. They should be paying Netflix for providing content that they can sell, content that makes their customers want more bandwidth.
Ideally, AT&T and Dish and Google will compete with Comcast, and then they will all be begging the content providers to provide content that requires tons of bandwidth.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.