Charging by the Byte to Curb Internet Traffic

[pcsky2]

I have read this article:Charging by the Byte to Curb Internet Traffic, will you like that?

[FlashLackey]

Who on earth would like that?

What they want to do is to adopt the cell phone model of billing. However, they will be foolish to try it, imo. I don't believe that the market will bear that kind of change. It will force consumers to look more closely and discover that the cable companies have been getting away with anti-trust practices for a while now. All it would take is for some senator somewhere to understand that there is a body of angry constituents to be gained and it will become a new pet platform issue. A few strokes of the pen and cable companies will actually have to compete for business.

[gerbick]

The first ISP that tries this and doesn't have a lock on that market in all areas - dial-up, dsl, cable, wimax, cellphone data and satellite - will see a mass exodus.

And rightfully so. That's a horrid idea.

[hanratty21]

Beyond playing devil's advocate, which I frequently do here...I actually think this has some merit. Perhaps the model is not completely solid, but the concept is certainly viable from a business perpective. If there is due diligence up front to existing customers to provide them with their comparative usage stats before hitting them with a penalty bill, this might be somewhat appropriate. Bandwidth usage will continue to be a problem without some sort of solution - this might not be it, but it might be a step in the right direction.

On a side note, I would not be surprised to find out the MPAA has soft spot for this concept as well.

[silverx2]

this will turn stealing wifi from a victimless crime, to Grand theft faster then it takes to find an hd movie stream.

[FlashLackey]

It is viable. Had they started with this model, we wouldn't know any different.

But, I think it's more a matter of a pigs get fat, hogs go to slaughter situation. They've already carved themselves out an advantaged and arguably illegal deal. If they want to go with the cost per byte deal, they're going to have to give up the land they've already swindled to gain. The market won't bear them having both.

[WannaBe_80z]

Well the company doing it in Texas right now is doing it that they(the customer) gets 40GB of bandwidth a month and then it is $1 for each additional GB they use. I wonder how much I really use- with youtube streaming and the like I wonder how fast 40gbs gets eaten up. I definitely don't download 40 gbs worth of stuff in a month.

[silverx2]

Well the company doing it in Texas right now is doing it that they(the customer) gets 40GB of bandwidth a month and then it is $1 for each additional GB they use. I wonder how much I really use- with youtube streaming and the like I wonder how fast 40gbs gets eaten up. I definitely don't download 40 gbs worth of stuff in a month.

streaming an hour long video can be upto 500mb.

are they talking upload and download combined for the 40gb?

think about how much gaming you do(pc+console) all the data sent and recieved.

All the pictures you upload

download songs and videos from itunes?

[WannaBe_80z]

Photo uploads it probably my biggest strain. I haven't opened a PC game in almost 3 months. Maybe I will play a little TF2 or COD4 tonight...

[Frets]

If the U.S. were Australia then it may hold a shred of rational.

The truth is the pipes are big enough to handle the traffic they do.

Remember the big 56k scare when it was thought that changing parity would break the back of the internet? Never happened just lots of hot air from Dvorak and several others (including MS)
Hell I just saw a siscko commercial showcasing hd quality video casting.

Meanwhile this week the chairman of the FCC talked about the need form more wireless broadband and hud houses to be wired for broadband.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7Ex_2L_4jzI

The bandwidth is there isp's are simply trying to tack on additional charges for goods they already are delivering.