Letters to the Editor
-
However, isn't part of the issue
that promises of "unlimited" broadband is a lie anyway?
-
What's The Conversion Rate Now, around 2/1?
'Right there in a big, inviting type, you see an offer for "unlimited" broadband service for just 8 pounds a month.'
8 pounds would then be around 16 dollars? 16 Dollars??? Jiminy H. Christmas, I HATE our communications cartels!
-
Yet again Farhad does not get it
Farhad,
Yet again a winge about you wanting stuff for free.
The issue with the BBC/Channel4/Sky iPlayer is that:
1) it uses p2p so when up and running everyone will be 'downloading the internet'
2) Unlimited (*) in the UK means a 1:20 or even 1:50 contention on a (4-8Mbit) ADSL connection, and even then there is a fair usage clause which says, '(*) we will cap your connection if you download the internet'.
and if you actually want to understand what is going on:
3) most ISPs are resellers of bandwidth from BT
4) increased bandwidth demand means either ISPs reduce speed or buy more bandwidth
5) The ISP business in the UK is highly competitive, if the ISPs buy more bandwidth they will have to pass on the price
5) Traffic shaping for p2p on cheapo services has been going on for several years, you get what you pay for -- those who know buy by the GB and get better service to boot.
So no surprise, the moment large-scale p2p takes off a re-adjustment bandwidth charges for the cheapskates.
-
Be careful what you wish for
Legislation always sounds great, but beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Consumer outrage works better and faster than laws any day. We have seen numerous examples in the world of the Internets. Dual pricing and other such schemes is going to have a tough time getting through the torrent of complaints about search systems, etc. are biased and unfair.
If we get legislation for "neutrality," then we're going to put government into the business of dictating how the people will conduct business and ultimately miring the Internet down with a million nitpicking details of doing things this way and not that, slowing progress down and raising costs.
If that doesn't convince you, let me remind you that people are still going to find a way to make a buck out of manipulating the situation and it will be in a way that is far more expensive to the consumer and harder to get rid of than a dual pricing system.
-
virtual cartels
Consumer outrage only works if there are available alternatives to turn to when your ISP jacks you around. If all providers behave that way then people tend to just accept it.
Exhibit A: the U.S. cell phone/wireless carrier market.
-
Not for free
I don't think anyone's saying that we should get everything for free. Just that providers either need to change their promises, or deliver on them. If you advertise unlimited internet, then you can't turn around and tell the people providing software that takes advantage of such a connection that they need to foot the bill. It's the ISP's responsibility to price packages so that they are profitable, not the BBC's.
The real, fair, solution, and what we'll see if network neutrality is finally forced by law, is pay for use, same as cell phones now provide. Have a cheap package for people who only check their email, some more expensive packages for people who want a flat fee that covers a reasonable ammount of throughput, and then have pay-as-you go plan. This keeps everyone happy, keeps costs low for people who need an internet connection, but nothing fancy, and passes the costs of building the network onto the people who use it the most.
The current system where the cost of internet is affected only by its speed is stupid.
-
The "fix" is often worse than the problem
If people don't complain loud and long, they get what they deserve. A government fix almost always makes things worse, then attempts to fix the "fix" get screwed up, ad infinitum.
The cell phone industry is a mess, but at some point, either some company will come along that breaks through and changes standard operating practices or technology leapfrogs over the problem.
Government doesn't work very efficiently, especially in a rapidly changing technological environment (visited the Social Security Office lately?). Why do you think you should turn to the government to fix a complicated problem?
-
"Customers" aren't the only ones who have already paid.
Farhad states:
You may have a hard time seeing the naked gall in this offer. Hey, you might say, if the BBC wants to offer video, why shouldn't it pay ISPs for network space it uses?
Easy answer: Because customers already paid for that space!
Customers aren't the only ones who are paying for it. The BBC pays too. When you set yourself up as a content provider, you don't just carry a box down to your local BT switching station and plug it in. You buy a connection (or rent space with a shared connection) to the internet, and as a content provider your cost for that continuing connection is calculated by the number of Bytes transferred. If the BBC is pumping out Terrabytes of content per hour, you can bet the meter is running on every single byte of it.
(Yes, I know that P2P obviates that to a considerable degree, but the end user has a similar contract with her service provider that limits the volume of material that can be uploaded.)
$0.02
- Stuart