Poll: Useage based billing

DarkBlood626

New member
Nov 9, 2008
142
0
0
The UBB Deception
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6peRQV5hFEQ

Quick summery if you can?t get the video to work

Data is not a manufactured product unlike every thing else you get on a pay per use basis. It is not a consumable product; data is nothing more then the series of electrical singles travelling through a bunch of wires over short and long distances. People who want more are paying for more already, because corporate providers charge on the speed. the more speed the costumers demand the more equipment they need to parches to meet that demand because of this speed based billing method the faster your connection and the more you use it the cheaper it gets all the way down to a fraction of a penny per gigabyte. A 160GB solid state drive (SSD) costs approximately $300 or about $1.88 per GB. Next day shipping in Canada for this SSD is around $10. Let?s say 24 hours in transit. That works out to a little over 15mbp at $1.94 per GB total. This means it is now cheaper in Canada to put there downloads on an expensive SSDs and ship them across the country and then throw them out instead of paying the $2 per GB there ISPs want to charge them when they go over the arbitrary bandwidth caps.
The companies say they don?t have enough network capacity to support there internet services because of 'bandwidth hogs' / 'Heavy users' but if a small number of consumers can gobble all there available network capacity doesn?t that mean there was never enough network capacity for every one and they say this while they upgrade there network capacity for other services such as IPTV.
UBB is a reaction to the fact the companies are losing money because allot of people are reducing or dropping there existing services and are getting all there media through the internet form independent providers,they don?t like this.

It?s the same old same old they want you to pay more for less we get shafted and they profit form it.
 

RevRaptor

New member
Mar 10, 2010
512
0
0
I already pay per usage, I buy my Internet in 25gb blocks. It's because its the only full speed decent provider in my shit hole country.
 

bdcjacko

Gone Fonzy
Jun 9, 2010
2,371
0
0
If I remember correctly, that is how the internet started. You paid for minutes not unlike phone bills as it was on the phone.
 

Cain_Zeros

New member
Nov 13, 2009
1,494
0
0
The government's gonna tell Bell to fuck off with the usage-based billing, so it's not as big a concern as it was.
 

DarkBlood626

New member
Nov 9, 2008
142
0
0
Aphex Demon said:
Mine's unlimited. My Dad's company pays for it :3
You should tell him to check if there's a fair use policy if there is its not unlimited even though unlimited probably was in the advertisement
 

MetalDooley

Cwipes!!!
Feb 9, 2010
2,054
0
1
Country
Ireland
DarkBlood626 said:
Aphex Demon said:
Mine's unlimited. My Dad's company pays for it :3
You should tell him to check if there's a fair use policy if there is its not unlimited even though unlimited probably was in the advertisement
Yeah my current broadband package advertises itself as unlimited but if you read the small print it's subject to a fair use policy of 250gb.Always gotta read the small print(although I can't see myself ever getting close to downloading 250gb in a month)
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
Maybe. If it becomes the only affordable option, I think the answer is pretty clear. I would start running no script and such again though. The last thing I want to spend bandwidth usage on is advertising.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
I said hell no, but pretty much everybody will pay per usage if it is the only decent internet available. I know I will, as much as i will hate it, and as little sense as it makes.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
...Who am I kidding, exploitative or not, if I had to pay usage based, I would. It would be terrible, but internet is practically a utility at this point.
 

Brandon237

New member
Mar 10, 2010
2,959
0
0
Sightless Wisdom said:
60gb cap here, sucks man. I hope things change soon.
Lol. I have a... wait for it... 9GB cap. I cannot use steam, and I am stuck with it for the next year, and what is more, the only reason it is 9 and not 5 is because the provider was FORCED to upgrade as it wasn't giving enough bang for bucks spent on it.

Yay 3rd world service provider roping my mom into contracts :(
 

MrTub

New member
Mar 12, 2009
1,742
0
0
brandon237 said:
Sightless Wisdom said:
60gb cap here, sucks man. I hope things change soon.
Lol. I have a... wait for it... 9GB cap. I cannot use steam, and I am stuck with it for the next year, and what is more, the only reason it is 9 and not 5 is because the provider was FORCED to upgrade as it wasn't giving enough bang for bucks spent on it.

Yay 3rd world service provider roping my mom into contracts :(
0.o wtf?
 

Lyx

New member
Sep 19, 2010
457
0
0
Depends on the price. There quite simply are capacity limits - no ressource is "unlimited".... the best case that could be made for a "flatrate" which actually could in theory be delivered to every customer, is there being enough traffic for everyone downloading at max speed 24/7 - but such a calculation is not efficient because it will never happen (and no one will want to pay the real costs of that).

So, in truth, the involved costs of the providers ARE (also) based on usage. Unless you're on a level 1 carrier (unprobable), the ISP actually buys traffic from the level 1 provider.

So, in terms of transparency and efficiency, users should pay based on usage. The problem however is, that the usage-based plans that ISPs provide, simply are a joke - the price per GB is so high that its an insult. These kinds of plans are made for users who consume VERY little traffic, and the price is artificially raised, so that the ISP gets an average minimum income (so, in principle, they punish people who consume little traffic).

Whats my argument? My argument is this: In theory, there should not be such a thing as flatrates.... but in practice only flatrates are affordable to people who use the net for more than checking email. Create some plan where the price per GB is so that one doesn't pay more than a flatrate with average traffic consumptions - THEN i'll agree.... and yet, i do not expect ISPs to do that, so i will continue to only accept flatrates, because the prices of usage based plans are a joke.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
Lyx said:
Depends on the price. There quite simply are capacity limits - no resource is "unlimited"....
Indeed.

Maybe everyone should go take a basic course on WANs and 'The Cloud.'

It cost MASSIVE amounts of money for world spanning networks, and equally massive amounts to keep them running.

There is no free lunch, guys.
 

Neyon

New member
May 3, 2009
124
0
0
Paying per GB is not neccesarily bad, but that pricing is obviously not even close to acceptable. No, your internet connection isn't a manufactured product, but they do have to pay for the infastructure. So it would be very interesting to see the average cost to the ISP of providing each GB of data and compare that to the prices paid. If the gap is huge regulators should step in, and it is likely competitors would also move in to compete away any supernormal profits. If this competition is prevented that is clear abuse of monopoly power and is exactly what regulators are supposed to prevent.