Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Swede Atlanta

(3,596 posts)
17. I for one have NO problem with this in principle....
Thu May 15, 2014, 04:10 PM
May 2014

Providers should be able to offer and set internet service prices based on a variety of criteria and I think usage is the correct primary metric. It is the metric used for everything else. You pay for gas at the pump based on the number of gallons. You pay for your electricity based on the amount used, etc.

For example there should be a low usage/low cost offering for seniors and those who use little bandwidth. They use the internet to check a few e-mails, pay a few bills and maybe watch a few youtube videos. Then this should scale up to people who sit and watch hour after hour after hour of streaming content. They should pay more.

The only issue is there is no competition. So the few providers will engage in harmful usage-based pricing policies that hurt both small and large users. They want to avoid having internet access become a commodity the way basic telephone service has.

Industry consolidation and reduced competition is the reason 'usage-based' pricing is a major concern. If the Comcast - Time Warner Cable deal is approved we reduce competition significantly. And now ATT (U-verse) is looking to acquire DirectTV. These consolidations empower the providers and reduce competition and choice. But the Obama administration is not going to block either one of these deals. Obama is not a populist. He is very much a corporatist. He likes corporations making lots and lots of money. What few crumbs may fall to the people is just gravy.

The other bit issue is allowing the ISPs to "fast lane" and "slow lane" based on who pays from a content perspective. I fear this can be used by the 1% to throttle access to progressive content because that content may challenge comcast's interests.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

the democans and republicrats in congress and the white house must be happy to hear this nt msongs May 2014 #1
Quelle surprise! ...... And the FCC chairman is determined to help them. marmar May 2014 #2
I have less trouble with this than toll roads. lumberjack_jeff May 2014 #3
I'd rather toll roads yeoman6987 May 2014 #8
me too. Aladeen2016 May 2014 #9
Doesn't toll receipts go to maintain those roads? NeoConsSuck May 2014 #12
We are. You're a co-owner, didn't you know? lumberjack_jeff May 2014 #32
They'll charge as much as they can get away with! Helen Borg May 2014 #4
one of the worst feelings in the world is when you realize you've been played. nt Javaman May 2014 #5
They build their network by charging exhorbitant rates to current customers gvstn May 2014 #6
Hows this going to effect online gamers? Nativechef May 2014 #7
you'll pay more for the "gamers package" more bandwidth for more money leftyohiolib May 2014 #10
It'll back fire... Nativechef May 2014 #23
i doubt it people will re-prioritize to come up with the cash and the ones who cant wont leftyohiolib May 2014 #24
The net itself should be a public utility SpankMe May 2014 #11
Nationalised by whom ? dipsydoodle May 2014 #16
I wonder how a person from the 90's with a 56k modem and 10 gb hard disk would react /nt jakeXT May 2014 #13
They don't know about this yet customerserviceguy May 2014 #25
Unsurprising. joshcryer May 2014 #27
I agree, we should either nationalize or regulate the #%*^ out of Internet connectivity MannyGoldstein May 2014 #14
Maybe we can go back to the good old days when fast internet cost $3000 a month. Kablooie May 2014 #15
I for one have NO problem with this in principle.... Swede Atlanta May 2014 #17
You're dead wrong Fearless May 2014 #21
then you see no problem with the right-wing owning all the radio stations?= leftyohiolib May 2014 #26
Quick! How many gigs of data do you use a month? KeepItReal May 2014 #18
My ISP currently has unlimited data, christx30 May 2014 #28
Changing the rules just to make more $$ has to stop KeepItReal May 2014 #29
This is where we boycott Comcast, isn't it? Jack Rabbit May 2014 #19
Two words... Google fiber Fearless May 2014 #20
Comcast already does this. I get calls from them indicating that I have exceeded and mfcorey1 May 2014 #22
Wow. Really? What's their cap for you? KeepItReal May 2014 #30
I have no idea of the cap or realize there was one until the calls. They simply indicate that I mfcorey1 May 2014 #38
They are 'testing' this in very limited markets. You must be in one of them. onehandle May 2014 #33
The fact that they are taunting us with this toddwv May 2014 #31
Comcast owns the FCC. Obama put a Comcast Republican on the FCC who ruled agains net neutrality. onehandle May 2014 #34
And, with no anti-trust laws, they'll in 5 years be the only provider Doctor_J May 2014 #35
Not on ComCast but... Hayabusa May 2014 #36
It's why the rich get richer and richer. Octafish May 2014 #37
I can see having a tiered plans... ChromeFoundry May 2014 #39
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Comcast plans data limits...»Reply #17