[daneb]

If they're having problems, it's only with a very small number of users. So I would say, let them cap usage for their "normal" plans at 100 or 200 GB per month. If they want more than that they can pay for a premium plan.

[wpwily]

{quote}Of course, maybe HillaryCare or the ObamaNation will provide it to everyone for FREE!!! I mean, why should only the rich have FIOS?.{quote}
You don't need to be rich to have FiOS. It's cheaper than cable in my area.

[akira34]

It's not the rich that have the chance to get FiOS, it's the towns that allow Verizon to run the lines that get it. My sister and mother are not in a rich area, far from it in fact. Most of the people getting FiOS are middle class. Sure, some of the towns have more affluent sections, but that's the same no matter where you go.

[TowerTone]

Sorry guys. That was tongue in cheek. (Not that a campaign would make promises just to sound good regardless of the need.)

[HalanR]

For years, every time an ISP or telco went before the Utilities Commission in my state, or before the FCC, asking for a rate hike, they would promise to use the extra funds for infrastructure improvements. Where did that money go? Into the pockets of the CEOs, or to develop other services, like cellular, which meant an even bigger profit for them. Now, they're screaming that they don't have the capacity for heavier traffic. WHAT A SCAM!! They're double-dipping! They're getting rate hikes on one end, promising to put it back into infrastructure, while all the time, using the money for something else, knowing full well they'll be able to charge more because their pipes aren't big enough.

These folks realize the Internet is the new cash cow, and they want to make sure they control it. I've written my Congressman and donated to support Markey's bill. Everyone needs to do the same. If you're complacent on this one, you may find one day you open your web browser only to find you've been disconnected because you went over your monthly bandwidth, and you'll have no one to blame but yourself.

Once they control the internet, who's to say they won't not only regulate traffic, but also start analyzing packets. The telco's are already given permission by the government to monitor our conservations.... do you think they'll have any trouble monitoring our data also? Personally, I want to be able to enjoy the open internet for as long as I'm able to... how 'bout you?

[HalanR]

Don't be so smug... there's nothing saying that they can't throttle you back, or monitor your traffic. You obviously don't see the implications of this type of control.

[HalanR]

You folks that are bragging about big pipes just don't get it! It's not just about bandwidth, it's about CONTROL! Whether you're a conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, big user or little surfer, the telcos and ISP want to control and regulate the internet.

You may think I'm a Chicken Little, but I'm a network engineer that administers a 10.000+ user network. Believe me, traffic monitoring and regulation is done all the time. But, we do it for our users, we don't have a monetary incentive like the telcos. Nor to we expect the FBI to come in and say, we want a tap on your network to split traffic over to "our" side for national security, of course... Trust us, we're from the government.

That's what it's about folks...

[Netizen_Kane]

daneb said:

If they're having problems, it's only with a very small number of users. So I would say, let them cap usage for their "normal" plans at 100 or 200 GB per month. If they want more than that they can pay for a premium plan.

What's the purpose of having fat pipes if you can't use them? Some people say downloaded movies are the future. Do you really want to have to buy a "premium plan" just to download movies? It's a slippery slope, so don't think you'll be immune. Once they start, I bet they'll find some way to charge everybody by the gigabyte.

[jpmm]

Let's just go back to the AOL days when you were charged per minute!
(Just kidding, but that's what I thought of).

[wardoggie]

I'm okay with paying for traffic, but I've had a web host account for years. They charge according to how much traffic my websites generate so I'm used to it. It might have a chilling effect on new services like iTunes HD movie rentals, but I think those are at the early adopter stage. The people who are likely to use them are also likely to have the premium ISP accounts that allow for that much download traffic. And as they become more mainstream, a Utopian business model would have the bandwidth limits move upward, too. But in the real world, who knows? Hopefully competition among ISPs would drag them upward.

[MacCheetah3]

Hi
Ever since I heard of FIOS, I wanted it bad. However, Verizon makes an @$$ of themselves to me again. They have fairly good cellular reception in MN because they did....Wel...Very little ( though more than i would expect from them ). They purchased companies who had put already a lot of finances into the towers like Cellular 2000 and Cellular One, who did so to advertise great statewide service. That and their customer support and salesman seem to be complete idiots, though that's of many companies...Especially the first ( bottom ) tier. Anwyho...And than i just read this...

Quote

Verizon Fios Availability - Minnesota

>

Quote

FIOS is currently not available for the state of Minnesota. Since Minnesota is not within the coverage of Verizon's territory, FiOS will most likely not reach the state of Minnesota anytime in the near future. Hopefully, other internet service providers in your state will provide access to fiber optic internet connection services in the future. Since Verizon is the first to offer fiber optic internet connectivity to residential consumers, it is still new. As dark fiber (inactive fiber) networks are continually being aquire by local ISP providers, soon fiber optic internet will become a standard. Lower speeds such as DSL and Cable internet will be phased out, while fiber optic internet connections will become active across the entire nation. Although Verizon FiOS is consistently expanding to other states, Verizon FiOS may never reach Minnesota. However, there are currently many other high speed internet service providers to choose from in Minnesota.

The best in our area is 6Mbps ( download ) cable. Usually not too bad pricing depending on company but... Ever since Charter bought out Astound, there's this nice price hike and shottier service. I only had Charter for ~1 month before I moved ( now I have US Cable for Internet ) and it was terrible. I read that they swapped out Astound's more updated equipment for that of the lesser stuff they used because it was more familiar.

Maybe the UK has tiers for amount of data transferred per month and whatnot but they also pay notably less for more bandwidth from what I hear than we do in the US.

I'll stop there but I certainly understand that we need to stop this control BS.

[mrbach]

The article is pretty stupid. The business model works like any other. Supply and demand.
People buy broadband for the bandwidth. If you ration it, then someone will come along and fill the gap. The whole industry is based on high bandwidth. Youtube, itunes, file transfer,movie rentals, etc.
The notion that we will all be sent back to 1994 because the medium is becoming more successful is asinine.
The medium is an organic infrastructure with an infinite capacity. It's not like we're burning oil here.

[eckhard]

mrbach said:

The article is pretty stupid. The business model works like any other. Supply and demand.
The whole industry is based on high bandwidth. Youtube, itunes, file transfer,movie rentals, etc.
The medium is an organic infrastructure with an infinite capacity. It's not like we're burning oil here.

Not quite:
Read up on how much a simple Google request costs in energy! All those servers are using huge amounts of power, so it is very much a question of using energy.

Moreover, just because some companies - like Apple - are basing their business concepts on an endless cheap supply of bandwidth doesn't mean providers can or will have to follow suit.
If you want to use parts of this brave new world, be ready to pay for it, or are you prepared to subsidize my personal preferences?

If that convenient movie-rental download saves you 2 miles walking or the price of gas, why shouldn't it cost some additional money in bandwidth charges? Get a bicycle and save on all fronts! ;)

Thus, I am all in favor of a pay-for-use plan.

[Netizen_Kane]

mrbach said:

The medium is an organic infrastructure with an infinite capacity. It's not like we're burning oil here.

Infinite capacity? Not quite. You might as well argue that the roads have infinite capacity for cars. Infrastructure needs to be built and maintained. Optical fiber backbones aren't cheap to build. ISPs have to pay for the data they transfer, despite peering agreements. To think that the Internet is some kind of magical entity that springs out of nowhere is a notion of supreme silliness.