-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
FCC's pay-as-you-go Internet plan raises video, access questions
- Thread starter Chaplain
- Start date
- Status
Dreams-Visions
Member
so just about everyone here is on the same page?
Great idea if there was a market filled with competing ISPs...but without that...FUCK THIS SHIT.
amirite?
Great idea if there was a market filled with competing ISPs...but without that...FUCK THIS SHIT.
amirite?
balladofwindfishes
Member
I still have bad dreams about Time Warner's 80 dollars for 60 gig plan they wanted to shove down our throats this time last year.
Cell Phone pricing doesn't work for computers. 80 dollars should get you 200 gig, not 60. Also, web pages don't even tell you how much bandwidth you're using, and most consumers don't even know what bandwidth is.
Cell Phone pricing doesn't work for computers. 80 dollars should get you 200 gig, not 60. Also, web pages don't even tell you how much bandwidth you're using, and most consumers don't even know what bandwidth is.
Dead Man Typing
Member
I think BT charges £5 per every 5GB you go over your download limit. Which resulted in me getting a colossal bill, when their system didn't update my status to Unlimited.
It was quickly dealt with, I didn't have to pay any extra, but that was a scary moment.
It was quickly dealt with, I didn't have to pay any extra, but that was a scary moment.
GregLombardi
Member
Shouldn't the internet be as free as water, with companies creating products that determine its best uses? Kind of like how cooks use water to create good mixtures of foods?
Fuck capitalism in this case. The internet is a basic need of the world.
Fuck capitalism in this case. The internet is a basic need of the world.
captmcblack
Member
Tobor said:
And not surprisingly, companies like Comcast, Verizon, and Cox - and all telcos/communication companies - are complaining about stressing their networks and are looking for ways to charge more (like with tiered pricing) precisely because they're only getting like 25 cents per GB from you and people like you.
They want more money. In this modern society, you WILL need a data services provider, whether it's your ISP or cell phone company. If they raise the prices, you WILL pay more because you need to have access to networked data in 2010 (or at least it's as close to a need as you can have outside of food/water/air/a home/electricity/plumbing), and you'll accept it.
Someone has to stop them.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
aesop said:
Many people in north america have unmetered water. In my city it's like ~$200 a year, all you can use. There are bylaws banning watering your lawn during a drought or whatever, but otherwise it's a free-for-all.
Stumpokapow said:
I live in North America, in a moderately sized city, and I've never heard of this. But that's not really free.
Raistlin said:
The cost of their infrastructure has significantly decreased over the past 10 years and yet they want to charge us more for it. That's fair.
captmcblack
Member
Raistlin said:
No, but they are already fucking consumers in so many ways that they could plausibly throw us a bone and not lose their rising profits on building infrastructure.
Every time you spend $10 a month on a package for text messages on your cellphone - shit, every time you even spend a DIME to send a message that is 160 bytes or less of data - you're being fucked. Do you no longer get access to newsgroups via your ISP, but suddenly have the ability to pay them for access again? You're being fucked. Do you suddenly have a data cap where you didn't have one 3 years ago? You're being fucked. Does your cable bill go up every year, and still you see channel fights between free networks/basic cable networks and your provider over costs that keep you from watching things? You're being fucked. And when those disputes are settled, and you STILL pay more again each year...you're being fucked there too.
So yeah, these companies could act slightly less anti-consumer every now and again. It would be pretty okay, actually. Nobody's asking for charity - just not blatant hatred of the customer, is all.
Raistlin said:
Americans already paid for it.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
Dreams-Visions
Member
preach it, bro.captmcblack said:
they need to spend more time on upgrading their tech and infrastructure so that it continues to cost them less to provide the same level or better services.
I'm aware of that ... but it still doesn't take into account maintenance, expansion, and improvements.surazal said:
Let me put it this way - you get what you pay for. If you think things suck now, I could only imagine the awesomeness free national 'broadband' would provide :\.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
It's funny how many people don't know this fact.surazal said:
balladofwindfishes
Member
it would provide the baseline for cost that could keep ISPs from raising rates too high without providing an alternative. If the government provided an Internet service at half the speed, but a sixth of the cost, it would force ISPs to either provide more services to balance it out, or lower rates.Raistlin said:
There really isn't any way to stop a monopoly like ISPs from charging whatever they want for a pittance of a service.
WickedAngel
Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
When local governments establish their own services, they get sued.
captmcblack
Member
Raistlin said:
Free national broadband would allow low income/impoverished people to have access to the same information services that the more wealthy do. It would allow them access to learning and research that would help in virtually everything they do. Hell, it could help them learn skills that could get them a job to increase their income with...and on the flipside, if they felt like wasting their little income, they'd have access to the multitude of money sinks on the Internet (porno, gambling, ads, games, web magazines, paid music, et al) - so that'd increase revenue for those companies.
Additionally, a free service would force other competing services to, you know...actually compete on features, price and coverage.
But again, nobody is asking for free anything. We are asking for them to zip their pants up and hold off on raping us any further for a modern necessity. They already make massive profits. The cost of providing these services already gets lower and lower each year, and the amount of people that are subscribed increases every year. The service cost already increases yearly via various tax/fee increases that they never have to substantiate the purpose of. For once, can't they actually consider the consumer - and not in a "so how much can we screw them and get away with it" fashion?
I have never understood this. The technology providing the internet should be equal to, if not far beyond, the technology that is on the internet. So, if that's true, and we live in a "Go Green" world, what do they need to increase price for? Expansion? I could maybe understand that but even then that should be a growth from their wealth and not something they are going to make customers everywhere pay for. Expansion should pay for itself, I say.
But seriously, I don't understand this. Am I using so much internet that I'm making them lose money yet they can still expand? What is this internet, anyways? How does it work as a utility that I pay for? Do I make phone calls, pay a bill, and then open up an empty box on my doorstep and magically have The Internet?
But seriously, I don't understand this. Am I using so much internet that I'm making them lose money yet they can still expand? What is this internet, anyways? How does it work as a utility that I pay for? Do I make phone calls, pay a bill, and then open up an empty box on my doorstep and magically have The Internet?
Maybe they should tier our cable usage too. Using too many bits of digital video results in more money paid. Maybe land lines should also be tiered with all calls instead of just long distance. Unlimited text plans? Get rid of it.
Maybe I should pay more in taxes if I exceed a certain number of miles driven per year so that my excessive road use repair costs can be covered.
Oh yeah this will also get rid of "free wifi" from any location and will force pay as you go at hotels, coffee shops, libraries, etc.
Maybe I should pay more in taxes if I exceed a certain number of miles driven per year so that my excessive road use repair costs can be covered.
Oh yeah this will also get rid of "free wifi" from any location and will force pay as you go at hotels, coffee shops, libraries, etc.
Point out where I made any statement regarding my position on pricing?captmcblack said:
Also, I actually was commenting on people asking for free broadband. Why are you replying to me claiming nobody asked for it?
What does this have to do with what I posted?aesop said:
_Bro said:
It already does. But they want to charge us anyways and pretend like we don't know any better. Then, when people finally do a little research and realize that those costs shouldn't be passed on to the consumer the ISPs tell us that they need to increase fees so they can give their employees raises. Meanwhile they are laying people off and hiring contractors to cut costs.
Raistlin said:
Well, you posted "I'm aware of that ... but it still doesn't take into account maintenance, expansion, and improvements." in response to "Americans already paid for it.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...10_002683.html" which was a response to "So companies are supposed to spend Billions on infrastructure out of the kindness of their hearts? Right" which you are using to justify the cost of providing internet.
DurielBlack
Member
So what can I, as a consumer, do to ensure that this bill doesn't pass?
I have basic cable TV where I live, from Warner, and the service is pretty bad. They won't even provide internet so I have to use mobile broadband from Sprint. Luckily I got in when they still had unlimted contracts and they have yet to enforce their shitty 5gb cap on me (I use about 15-25 gb a month). If I ever lose Sprint for internet, its back to dial-up which is obviously good for nothing, you can't even check e-mail on 56k these days.
I have basic cable TV where I live, from Warner, and the service is pretty bad. They won't even provide internet so I have to use mobile broadband from Sprint. Luckily I got in when they still had unlimted contracts and they have yet to enforce their shitty 5gb cap on me (I use about 15-25 gb a month). If I ever lose Sprint for internet, its back to dial-up which is obviously good for nothing, you can't even check e-mail on 56k these days.
iclash
Member
Sound like you live near me. In Salt Lake City we can choose between Qwest (my least favorite telecom ever) or Comcast. Comcast isn't the greatest but the 250gb cap is more than adequate for my needs and the speed is exceptional. Tiered pricing could ruin World of Warcraft and xbox live for me, let alone youtube, netflix, etc...
polyh3dron
Banned
This is pretty shitty.
They're going to have some real cheap plan for like 3GB a month and say that something like 95% of American families don't use more than 3GB a month and the many of the families who get that plan will have kids that get on YouTube and go way over the limit, and then those families will be charged overage fees that border on criminal.
They're going to have some real cheap plan for like 3GB a month and say that something like 95% of American families don't use more than 3GB a month and the many of the families who get that plan will have kids that get on YouTube and go way over the limit, and then those families will be charged overage fees that border on criminal.
This pay as you go or tiered thing, are they even thinking how it will affect e-stores? Itunes, amazon, B&N, and whatever else will lose business since people will be like, "hmmm, gotta put off that purchase since I don't want to go over the limit this month."
How are those businesses and stuff like PSN, XBL not raising issue over this? It has the potential to hurt those companies quite considerably. If I'm a college student (large demographic of e-shopping I would assume) my extra money will be going to making sure I have internet access, not the yeezy album.
Terrible, terrible idea.
How are those businesses and stuff like PSN, XBL not raising issue over this? It has the potential to hurt those companies quite considerably. If I'm a college student (large demographic of e-shopping I would assume) my extra money will be going to making sure I have internet access, not the yeezy album.
Terrible, terrible idea.
Count me out of this internet is garbage in the US where it really counts for me which is ping stability and upload speed. I use these two so much and since moving to FLA and being stuck with comcast or AT&T time has taught me count your blessings when you get them. I would never pay either of these companies for a service that is rarely up constantly as I get reset 3 to 5 times a day and online gaming is garbage. Use to rag on timewarner but at least they gave me a decent speed, my ping was usually 30ms-60ms not a permanent 90ms and above.
I wonder if ISPs realize how screwed certain industries who utilize the internet would be screwed. I wonder if anyone has told the porn industry these companies will either break a sagging model more or benefit from it more directly than the providers.
I wonder if ISPs realize how screwed certain industries who utilize the internet would be screwed. I wonder if anyone has told the porn industry these companies will either break a sagging model more or benefit from it more directly than the providers.
rohlfinator
Member
Is per-usage billing even illegal now? I thought that was common practice until they realized that most people are willing to overpay for the peace of mind of (theoretically) unlimited service.
I'm not against the idea in theory, but they're obviously going to use this to jack up prices. I can't even think of the last time a telecom made a change in the customer's favor.
I'm not against the idea in theory, but they're obviously going to use this to jack up prices. I can't even think of the last time a telecom made a change in the customer's favor.
They know and they don't care. If ISPs move to a metered model, I firmly believe that it'll be primarily an attempt to stifle services like Netflix, Hulu, and VoIP, which are encroaching on their cable and telephone monopolies.LCGeek said:
rohlfinator said:
No, this is a drummed up story by people who are opposed to Net Neutrality. Just like the concept that Net Neutrality will regulate content on the internet.
There is no regulation preventing providers from offering tiered services. The FCC proposal simply doesn't change this fact
Diatribe1974
Member
StoOgE said:
Till you want to watch a couple movies via Netflix over the internet one month, then get your ISP bill the next month and you shit yourself worse than Randy Marsh in South Park.
DiatribeEQ said:
The quote your replied to does not support tiered pricing. Tiered pricing won't fly specifically for the reason you described. YouTube/Netflix/etc are too pervasive. Government intervention simply isn't necessary at this point. Companies have tried tiered pricing and it was rejected
sangreal said:
The problem is that the government grants the internet services a local monopoly. Competition doesn't exist, at least not good competition. If Time Warner decided to double the price of RoadRunner next month, my only options would be to take it up the ass or switch to dialup. That's why the government needs to regulate these companies. They need to start allowing competition and break the stupid monopolies.
edit: Imagine if the electricity company started charging 1000 times the price of each kwh after the first 500 each month. If the internet companies are eager to switch to pay by the gb services, make them prove how much each gb costs them. Instead of charging $10/gb make it the $0.01 that it actually costs them.
Slayer-33 said:
I agree 100%, it's like no matter how much money these companies make they want more and more and more. It's fucking insane, and if the government does this I will boycott. Because I guarantee you the lowest tier will be what I pay now per month which is around $59.99. They just want to up rates on those that use excessively. When did this country become all about the rich becoming obnoxiously rich and the middle class and poor being 100 levels below them? It's disgusting.
Raistlin said:
wat
Could you rephrase this so it makes sense? And the link is http://www.pbs.org/ which was posted above.
nicerdicer
Neo Member
Around the time of the declaration of independence. Progress and technology has only given them the tools to further stratify...unomas said:
Not really a surprise, it's the same way here in MNiclash said:
This depicts DirectTV's packages with different internet providers (basically corresponding to where AT&T, Qwest, and Verizon have regional monopolies). Comcast itself is also quite strong along the northern region of the US (from Washington/Oregon to Minnesota, Iowa, and wisconsin, stemming over a bit into Illinois, Missourri, and Michigan, too
Basically, Qwest and Comcast are always butting heads and control everything in telecommunications/internet along the west coast (excluding cali), the rockies, and the upper midwest :lol
also, for the lulz:
http://www.geldpress.com/i/img/att-history.jpg
With tiered pricing already existing for a lot of customers, why don't services like Netflix allow you to choose the quality of your video?
Example, I take my PS3 to my dad's who uses a sprint 3G card in his wireless router. The PS3 Netflix does not allow me to select the video quality, it determines it on its own. So let's say Netflix determines that 1080p is doable and uses it. If I was on a tiered pricing plan, I wouldn't want Netflix to choose that resolution.
Also YouTube on mobile devices also doesn't allow you to choose resolutions. (I can choose high def or not, but if I was on a tiered pricing scheme I would want the low 320p all the time)
The direction everything is moving on the Internet is in the opposite direction of things like this.
Example, I take my PS3 to my dad's who uses a sprint 3G card in his wireless router. The PS3 Netflix does not allow me to select the video quality, it determines it on its own. So let's say Netflix determines that 1080p is doable and uses it. If I was on a tiered pricing plan, I wouldn't want Netflix to choose that resolution.
Also YouTube on mobile devices also doesn't allow you to choose resolutions. (I can choose high def or not, but if I was on a tiered pricing scheme I would want the low 320p all the time)
The direction everything is moving on the Internet is in the opposite direction of things like this.
- Status