Google, Verizon Propose Open vs Paid Internets

[Alvein]

Clearly you(and in fairness, most people) do not.

Let's say this outloud a few times, in hopes that it will stick.

Bandwidth is not a commodity.
Bandwidth is not a commodity.
Bandwidth is not a commodity.
Bandwidth is not a commodity.
Bandwidth is not a commodity.
Bandwidth is not a commodity.
Bandwidth is not a commodity.

There isn't a bandwidth mine somewhere where we mine bandwidth and when it's all out it's gone.

It is just a speed limit, nothing more. We all share the speed limit as a whole.

Guess what though? We can increase it nearly infinitely just *by adding more hardware*, a nearly negligable cost, we're not even remotely close to the physical limits of cable and fiber-optic lines, and even then, you just keep running them parralel.

Telcoms have spent a great deal over the past two decades manipulating the public into thinking of bandwidth as a limited resource...you use it and are limited to a certain amount of it.

Why? To charge you fees for something that is practically free, of course.

Be an informed consumer and stop buying into the bullshit.

The actual cost of "bandwidth" is something along the lines of $17 per petabyte(and going down constantly), and that's really just electricity.

An analogy is if you bought a router for your home and the company charges you by the megabyte for information sent over it...sounds retarded...internet works the same way.

So what exactly is the cost of internet to the ISP if it's not the bandwidth?

[guartz]

So what exactly is the cost of internet too the ISP if it's not the bandwidth?

servers, electricity, wires and manpower. (lawyers, it, customer support)

also to/too/two fail

[Niiro]

Yeah that's got to be the stupidest thing i've heard of. "Lets let the ones who stand to profit from abusing the system..run the system!"

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4...nflagandea.jpg

at least you cant get kidnapped and locked in a rape facility because you don't follow google's rules.

Give it time.

[Serra]

Clearly you(and in fairness, most people) do not.

I meant that in terms of 'I understand the concept of paying for how much you use since I have to pay for gas or electricity.' That aside, thanks for clearing that up. I thought that was how it worked, but Alvein's post made me think I might be wrong~

[Kat]

Bah we get charged through the nose here in New Zealand for bandwidth :/ The plan our house is on is $78 US per month for 50Gigs with an extra $2.09 US per additional 2 GB.

And the fastest speed I've ever gotten is 6 Megabits per second.

Hopefully when the new pacific cable is ready in a few years things will be cheaper

[Deftscythe]

Why are people talking about bandwidth? Isn't this story about limiting access to content?

[Minions]

Why are people talking about bandwidth? Isn't this story about limiting access to content?

Wrong, its about the internetocalypse.

Cell phone companies are already bandwidth limiting, eventually we're all going to get shit on. Everyone will have fast internet with 2gb caps!

[Alvein]

Off topic rant but worth noting-
Cell Phone service doesn't seem as bad in other countries. For example, in Ukraine, I had an awesome plan where I had 100 minutes a day within network for free and about 300 minutes outside network which lasted 80 days. I only had to pay $10 for this every 80 days.Texting was a flat rate of 13c per outgoing text, all incoming were free. I could also buy 100 texts for $2 if I chose to. That would last the whole 80 days.

Here? On Verizon it's $20 a month for texting, the only package plan is unlimited, other that or it's 25c a text, both incoming and outgoing are charged, which is the biggest bunch of BS I've ever seen.

I wouldn't be surprised if internet ended up being like this eventually, it's quite profitable. Adding little charges here and there for everything. And I'm sure the way companies will justify the limitation is the bandwidth cost, even if it's artificial and lies.

[Serra]

Part of what is different about cell phone plans in some (most?) countries is that the cell phones aren't subsidized. You can buy any phone (for more than it'd be over here) and take it to any network. While phones are more, it means the plans are cheaper, and since the companies have to actually have reliable networks to compete, they're typically better. It also means that every 2 years you don't get that upgrade credit, and if you wanted say an Evo now, you're paying the full $500 price point.

[Narol]

Wait, there isn't normally a tiered system in the US?

My first reaction, basically. Kind of like government health care in that respect. "Wait, you people are complaining about stuff that's already existed for ages?"

Though tiered bandwidth really does suck (and I'm on one of the higher-end options, too). You can get unlimited, but it's hideously expensive compared to the other options. On the other hand, it is a handy check against downloading even more stuff and never getting around to watching/playing/whatever. I guess? As a bright side?

Meh. ISP Stockholm Syndrome at work.

Edit: It's also anal violation on trackers that keep track of your upload:download ratio (since X GB/month is upload+download combined). And sometimes you just can't find what you're looking for on other trackers.

[Khamsin]

Since when was the internet free in the first place? Would this make "plain" internet (what we have now) actually free (unlike now, since we pay for it currently)? Or would it just cost more, e.g. choose between $40/month for cable internet like normal, or $60/month for the super-internet package instead.

[Darus Grey]

See:

Free as in open. "I set him free"

Free as in lacks monetary value. "This bagel was free"

[Kaisha]

(since X GB/month is upload+download combined).

I must be on one of the few ISPs on the planet that has them separate.

And to be frank, I hate it. We pay for 20gb down, 20gb up, we always use around 30-40gb down a month ($1 per gb over), 2gb up at most throughout the month. I'd rather have that unused 18gb of up usable for down.


If bandwidth isn't a commodity, why do some providers feel the need to rape us in the ass on prices for it? Is it really that expensive to run the operation that they need that extra funding? I know in my area most ISPs have to pay rental fees to Bell since they own the majority of the lines here, but even then, Bell's own rates suck as well.

It can't just be a money grab, or else there'd be that one ISP coming out of nowhere toting unlimited bandwidth as its catch, to which I'd gladly sign up for so subscribing to NetFlix would actually be viable for me when it hits Canada later this year.

[Darus Grey]

If bandwidth isn't a commodity, why do some providers feel the need to rape us in the ass on prices for it? Is it really that expensive to run the operation that they need that extra funding?

Because they can, and because people are dumb enough to pay for it. Welcome to the world of mono/duo/etc-opolies.

It can't just be a money grab

Of course it can.

And no, infact, in most countries the infrastructure was built with tax-dollars, and all ISPs do is minimal maintenance, otherwise riding the gravy train for $$$, their operations are not expensive at all, compared to their income.

[notorious bum]

Pretty much sums it up there. They own the fiber here, they can do whatever the hell they want because regulation is practically nonexistent.

[Narol]

We pay for 20gb down, 20gb up

Jesus christ, how do you survive at 20 gigs a month? I go through that much a week sometimes.