Should internet users pay "by the downloaded bit", rather than for a specific speed?

[Occulus]

Poll question: Should internet users pay "by the downloaded bit", rather than for a specific speed?

Simple yes or no.

(I'll check this when I get home from work in the morning.)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

1. either...or...just pick one...

all this BS about selling you a 'bandwidth' then restricting/throttling based on usage or media type is crap. i would prefer a pipe and a speed...but 'by the bit' pricing makes since for some users...

sP

[Yo_Mama]

2. No

Because a lot of what people download is embedded in webpages. It may be fairer to impose an extra cost for very large downloads, i.e. a bunch of movies or so, but a person can end up with a pretty high download total just from reading news with embedded videos and ads every day.

We're beating up on the poor quite enough; let's not continue down this route.

[hayu_lol]

3. An early net, QLink, for Commodore/Amiga users...

used to charge .08/minute for connection. Bills used to soar. To start charging a 'bit' rate now would just about kill the internet for all but the wealthiest users. Ummm...and what would happen to all the new technologies and equipment then?

Sounds as if the phone companies are getting greedy again.

[Toucano]

4. There's no justification for this. n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

7. so, bandwidth should be free?

is there justification for different rates for mobile users?

sP

[Toucano]

8. Is that what I said? n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. well, then, what is there no justification for exactly? n/t

[Toucano]

10. The questions was about users paying "by the download bit", wasn't it? n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. yes...

but if you think there is no justification for charging by the bit...what should the charge criteria be? data rate vs. data consumed has long been a question that is valid for mobile users...why not stationary consumers?

sP

[Toucano]

12. Are mobile and stationary users using the same technology? n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

13. everything but the last mile...yes...

nice to see you are being obtuse/belligerent this evening. the point is that either method of charging for internet usage is valid... but you want to act like they are somehow so different... goodnight and thanks for totally avoiding answering the questions posed to you. nice job of dancing and avoiding my point...you must be a politician...

sP

[Toucano]

15. LOL! You did start in with a strawman, didn't you?

As if anything I said suggested "free"! :spank:

Yes, I was toying with you - but you deserved it a little.

But it's that last mile that has always presented the greatest challenge. Hence, the difference.


I wouldn't count on the mobile pricing structure to always be as it is.

[2Design]

5. at $40 or more a month they are raking it in now and its the governement who built the damn thing

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. who do you think owns all the interconnects?

while some of what you call the internet is gov't supported, much MUCH of it is built by cable and phone companies...NOT the gov't...

sP

[Capitalocracy]

14. dear god no!

are you people trying to kill me? :hide: