[KYA]

I know this isn't really a new story, but there have been new developments. ISPs are trying to move toward metered services in the United States.

See here

This is quite possibly the most retarded thing I have ever read.

If I want to watch my consumption I'll get dial up

This post has been edited by KYA: 16 April 2009 - 12:50 PM

[Locke]

KYA, on 16 Apr, 2009 - 10:29 AM, said:

I know this isn't really a new story, but there have been new developments. ISPs are trying to move toward metered services in the United States.

See here

This is quite possibly the most retarded thing I have ever read.

If I want to watch my consumption I'll get dial up

But it makes sense.

[skyhawk133]

Locke, on 16 Apr, 2009 - 09:31 AM, said:

But it makes sense.

Please to have you be explainin'

[Nykc]

Quote

In addition to compelling consumers to monitor their Internet usage, metering could have broad societal effects, including disenfranchising the poor, retarding network growth and discouraging innovation, some experts say.

Haha retarding network growth. That's what this is retarded!!!!!!

Very old story, and I am not sure this model will survive, it is the cable companies freaking out because of falling network television ratings. If they want to fix the ratings, don't attack the bandwidth consumers, attack the piss poor programming delivered nightly.

Also to semi-hijack this with a bitch piss and moan. Insight - my new Cable provider thanks to the move, is going to cost me $20 more for the same bundle I am currently receiving with less internet speed and less cable channels.

Fuck Cable companies. What ever happened to the Broadband Over Powerlines that they were testing out?

[Locke]

skyhawk133, on 16 Apr, 2009 - 10:34 AM, said:

Locke, on 16 Apr, 2009 - 09:31 AM, said:

But it makes sense.

Please to have you be explainin'

You pay different amounts depending on the quality/quantity of food you eat, right?

Same principle.

I'm not saying I like it, because I do think it would suck...but it makes sense nonetheless.

[KYA]

America is sad. It's 2009. We should have fiber optic cable all over the place, but we don't. I refuse to be nickeled and dimed for misc. bullshit. Paying by the byte scares me. Just think, I'll be paying to see those ads with dancing people telling me how great their new mortgage is.

*shudders*

This post has been edited by KYA: 16 April 2009 - 09:38 AM

[KYA]

Locke, on 16 Apr, 2009 - 09:38 AM, said:

You pay different amounts depending on the quality/quantity of food you eat, right?

Same principle.

I'm not saying I like it, because I do think it would suck...but it makes sense nonetheless.

Not quite. I can choose exactly what I put into my body. I don't have any control over what MSN puts on their homepage, but I will be spoon fed it when open my browser initially.

At the present level of service I can't see this becoming widespread. If I'm paying by the byte, the service had better be flawless, I mean damn flawless.

[Gloin]

Now your argumentation is just as off.. If you don't like what MSN put on their homepage then don't visit it.

[Locke]

Precisely, no one is forcing msn.com down your throat.

[KYA]

Gloin, on 16 Apr, 2009 - 09:55 AM, said:

Now your argumentation is just as off.. If you don't like what MSN put on their homepage then don't visit it.

What? It's a perfect example. If ISPs mandate data caps, then users will have to have a lot more discretion on their consumption. This will lead to decreased traffic, thus decreased ad revenue and is bad business for everyone. Explain to me how my argument is off please.

edit: I'll break it down for you.

People will gladly pay a flat rate for unlimited texting on their mobile phones. If that flat rate was abolished and per message rate was introduced with fees for an over the max message limit, how many people will still use it frequently?

Would twitter exist if there were data caps in place? Innovation would be stifled and there would widespread consumer doubt and possibly fear. Closer to home: would people live at </DIC>? consider the massive amount of information here. I have no idea what constitutes a regular page, but it is quite a bit, more then other websites. If I had a data cap, I would spend less time here, in fact less time on the internet period.

This post has been edited by KYA: 16 April 2009 - 10:03 AM

[JonBernal]

This is bull!

I will be pissed if they do that.

[Gloin]

No, you'll get what you're willing to pay for. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't stop using MSN just for having to pay a few cents extra for the ads. It's not that high amount of data.

[KYA]

Gloin, on 16 Apr, 2009 - 10:07 AM, said:

No, you'll get what you're willing to pay for. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't stop using MSN just for having to pay a few cents extra for the ads. It's not that high amount of data.

And something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. The pennies for ads is not about the money, it's the principle. It's like paying for ON DEMAND on cable, but then not being able to pick what you watch.

[JonBernal]

Its like having cable TV, and they charge you
extra because you watched over 30 hours
of TV this week.

[KYA]

JonBernal, on 16 Apr, 2009 - 10:59 AM, said:

Its like having cable TV, and they charge you
extra because you watched over 30 hours
of TV this week.

Good analogy.


The real scary part is this leads down a slippery slope. first they charge us per byte. Then they'll prioritize data. This will result in yet another fee. Net neutrality!