Tiered Internet

[das1330]

The difference between, say, water and bandwidth is that there is no increasing cost as you use increasing bandwidth - while water may cost a penny per cubic foot to treat and pump, internet bandwidth does not work that way - either an ISP has enough or it does not. This is why any type of bandwidth cap on systems outside of certain special situations (like satellites, where bandwidth limitations can be a problem) is nothing more then a creative attempt to price gouge customers; most ISP's run nowhere near network capacity, and if they do upgrades to the network are very, very cheap.

[RSBDavid]

The internet is fine the way it is. The government wants to control us more.

[compfreak847]

 

Poorly Serviced Area by her local phone company, Any DSL Services rents lines from the phone company, some states like South Carolina, clearly don't have ANY highspeed options even cable. Typically The Cable/Phone Companies are to blame for poor equipment, not your ISPs.

 

It' s not the why, it just is - she simply has no other options.

 

 

 

 

Is this a real case or the fictional land of oz? I manage a call center with hundreds of thousands of customers in the South of the USA (NC,GA,AL,FL,SC,TN ETC) Where phone line quality is AWFUL, and id say Dial Up Averages 33.3k on the worst most middle of no where places.

 

 

 

Is grandma using an init string? new modem? new hardware? whats her OS?

 

No int string, 3-4 year old modem (Supports v.92, no problem there) with XP. The line in her area is just plain terrible - there's audible static and static [bleep]es when she uses the phone. It's possibly due to the very old neighborhood\house she lives in. And yes, this is a real situation. But I've also serviced people out in the country who can never break 30 KB\s.

 

 

 

 

Ok, and thats a problem with the area, it's more of a problem of infrastructure that should be laid at the phone companies afeet not your internet companies who purchase the right to use the lines from the companies to provide DSL.

 

Yes, but she's certainly not alone. There's no sign of a quick fix for this, and she's stuck paying the $50 a month. Not that she minds - it's worth it to her.

 

 

 

 

DSL allots the same amount of bandwidth per person, as a DSLAM can only take X amount of connections and each port is capped at the DSLAM for whatever set speed you pay for. That being said, DSL doesnt matter if you are on a DSLAM with 90 users downloading a TB daily or 100 old ladies checking email, because that DSLAM is set for a certain speed max and max connections and if it's maxed out by either, they have to add more in a nutshell. Your ISP pays for a set amount of bandwidth monthly, and it's factored into your monthly rates, On DSL you want to purchase enough bandwidth to cover your busiest times of the day. You have the same amount of bandwidth on sunday at 4 AM as friday during lunch rush. You lose money in the sleep hours, as all phone companies charge ISP's for a flat rate bandwidth during that time. So who cares what DSL customers download, it's paid for in your monthly fee.

 

That is true. I'm quite aware that only peak hours count for total bandwidth consumed, but Grandma (She's not actually mine, but she is a grandma; just using it for the "elderly woman" example :P ) rarely uses it during peak hours while the move streaming family uses it the most then.

 

 

 

 

It is, if you dont drive your car and it rusts, is it their fault? If you dont watch TV, do you get a credit issued for the night you did not turn it on? People try this crap all of the time, I didnt use my internet today, can I have a .xx cent credit? I get about 2 of those calls a week escalated to me because they dont feel it's right to be charged for a service they have not used for the day while it worked.

 

No, but neither of those cost the providing companies a penny more if I use it or don't. It doesn't clog up infrastructure or force then to increase available bandwidth.

 

 

 

If, however, I don't use water in a day, I don't get charged for it.

[das]

But the fact she has no other options is not really anyones fault, I don't know where granny is at, but i'd love to sell her DSL, but the problem is most phone companies and Cable companies are either not going to spend the money or rely on goverment grants for rural areas.

 

 

 

Has she tried to call the company? Audible Static is something as a paying phone customer they should be required to service (at least, most of the areas i'm familar with they have too) More than likely they can recondition or replace the lines. I know alot of areas that have had the old 70's copper wiring removed at last.

 

 

 

I'd personally do/try an init string. They can deal with bad wiring better than if you dont use one at all. V92 support or not Infact they do work wonders in some areas (+MS=V34 does well in bad areas and they actually get around 30 compared to the frequent disconnects they used to).

 

 

 

The problem with, if you cap grandma, shes more than likely never going to use it, never going to understand capping or use her full $50 worth even if she was capped. even if she was paying 24.95 for low end dsl, I doubt grandma uses it enough to justify spending it, it seems lots of elderly may use it for email only a few times a day, worth is subjective though. What is worth 24 or 50 to her, may not be worth to your worst downloader.

 

 

 

Wouldnt know on water, I live in an area where I only pay for the electricity to pump it. I have my own well. :P

 

However I view internet as a service, and not a utility, you pay for it to be their, not by usage; if you paid by bandwidth, I doubt isps could cover costs.

 

 

 

Which is why tiered internet is a doomed and silly concept!

[Stragomagus]

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090421/1248354597.shtml

 

 

 

[hide=]from the oops dept

 

 

 

Just as the various broadband providers are ramping up their bogus astroturf attempts to convince the world that broadband caps are necessary and good for customers, Saul Hansell has been digging deep into the numbers and can't find any justification at all for the caps. All those stories about overwhelmed networks and exponential traffic growth? Not happening. If anything, the evidence is that the opposite is happening: advances in technology means that it's become cheaper for broadband providers to meet the needs of their customers. And those needs are growing, but that growth rate has been slowing, and is quite manageable. So, basically, the broadband companies are hyping up a problem that just isn't there. There is no crunch. There aren't bandwidth shortages that require cutting off heavy users. The only reason to set up such tiers is to squeeze more money out of customers without providing any improvements in service (actually, while providing less service). And it's all possible thanks to the lack of competition in the marketplace.[/hide]

 

 

 

and some data to back up that article....

 

 

 

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/mints/2002-2008/analysis-2002-2008.html

 

 

 

That is all you need to know as to why tiered and a capped internet will not workas well as being a bs argument overall.

[ArmadylArcher]

Government control is a horrible idea.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Don't worry. The Cyber Security Act of 2009 will destroy the Internet long before this happens, if the act passes.

 

You're right, we shouldn't bother defending ourselves against cyber attacks. No worries, just as long as the no-lifing fifteen year olds can still play Runescape, right? :roll:

[Laura]

I don't like the tiered plans because they usually lead to variable pricing that is far more expensive than a uniform plan. It sits nicely where it is, in between the users that use little bandwidth and those that use a lot. I think I read somewhere that like 10% of users account for 90% of the bandwidth though. If you want a cheap capped service, go with a mobile phone company.

[l0l0lpur34]

Don't worry. The Cyber Security Act of 2009 will destroy the Internet long before this happens, if the act passes.

 

You're right, we shouldn't bother defending ourselves against cyber attacks. No worries, just as long as the no-lifing fifteen year olds can still play Runescape, right? :roll:

 

it's not about "cyber attacks".

[____]

Don't worry. The Cyber Security Act of 2009 will destroy the Internet long before this happens, if the act passes.

 

You're right, we shouldn't bother defending ourselves against cyber attacks. No worries, just as long as the no-lifing fifteen year olds can still play Runescape, right? :roll:

 

it's not about "cyber attacks".

 

Yep... in Australia it was all about child pornography... but they didn't want to stop there, according to a leaked list. Some sites on their list aren't even illegal by current Australian laws, so they have no right to prohibit access to them.