Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans

Posted by samzenpus on from the I'm-going-to-need-another-10-minutes-of-internet dept.

An anonymous reader writes "As details emerge about the Federal Communications Commission's controversial proposal for regulating Internet providers, a provision that would allow companies to bill customers for how much they surf the Web is drawing special scrutiny. Analysts say pay-as-you-go Internet access could put the brakes on the burgeoning online video industry, handing a victory to cable and satellite TV providers. Public interest groups say that trend will lead to a widening gap in Internet use in which the wealthiest would have the greatest access."

8 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The U.S. Constitution by TheL0ser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whenever you have to ask where something is in the Constitution, the answer is "Interstate Commerce". Even when it shouldn't be or isn't. Especially when it shouldn't be or isn't.

  2. Bandwidth huh? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TFA = about 20k
    Web 2.0 crap plus ads= 1.6 megs
    or some such

    Lynx Lives Again!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  3. A la carte cables by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's funny how cable companies all want us to pay as we go for internet access, yet still insist on pushing bundlings of hundreds of TV channels on us if we want to use cable TV.

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
  4. I might be okay with this on one condition... by chemicaldave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...if the telecoms also give me pay-as-i-go cable TV plans. Why haven't they caught up with customer demand? Just let me pick which channels I want to watch and pay less for only those channels instead paying a premium for a bunch of channels I wont watch. The options they give are baffling. Pay very little for local channels, or pay a fuckload for 200+

    1. Re:I might be okay with this on one condition... by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd go a step further...cable boxes and satellite boxes are pretty advanced....so I should only pay for the time that I'm watching the channels too.

      Weeelll, you see, the thing is: It doesn't actually cost us anything let you access 10 of our channels vs 500 channels.

      This is because Satellite TV transmits all channels all the time to just about everywhere around you. So, it really doesn't cost us anything more if you watch TV constantly instead of only 10 minutes a day, and satellite distribution to 1 million customers doesn't cost us any more than distribution to one customer.

      We've successfully tricked most people into thinking that a huge price increase for twice the number of channels is reasonable when, in fact, all we do is change the DRM keys in your set-top box so that you can decode the extra channels that we are sending to you (and everyone else in your city) anyhow.

      Oh, and extra monthly fee for having a 2nd set top box? Ha ha ha, we make you pay for the set-top box, then charge you extra per month for something that costs us nothing to transmit! People gladly hand us more money Hand over Fist, it's amazing how dumb they are!

      With Cable it's a bit different, we pay to maintain the lines, but other than that, it's the same.

      TV is a purely distribution only system, there is no "on demand". The Internet is a totally different beast (which we use to provide some on-demand services). With the Internet, we try to send you only the data you request. Actually, we don't do that, we send any data destined for your IP, whether you wanted it or not, so beware of DDoS attacks because your pay-as-you-go bill will be humorously expensive.

  5. Ad Blocking by colinnwn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've never much minded internet advertisements as long as they weren't popups, popovers, or popunders. But if I have to start paying for every bit delivered to me, my hosts file is gonna get big fast, adblock and javascript blocking will become required addons for all my web browsers. Every business that advertises on the web should be screaming bloody murder at internet providers to not implement this. It will decimate the internet revenue model for many companies.

  6. Re:The U.S. Constitution by jimrthy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This mis-interpretation is pretty much exactly how that clause has made the Constitution completely meaningless.

    It was a harmless little addendum that pretty much everyone considered perfectly safe. The point was to keep trade "regular" among the States. So that, for example, Virginia isn't allowed to attach extra tariffs to goods passing through from New York.

    Now everyone thinks it means "Congress can do anything it wants.

  7. Re:Man, if only... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Electricity and gas are unlike bandwidth. They are limited in a way bandwidth isn't. If you use a unit of gas, you have to generate more. On the other hand, if you use a unit of bandwidth there's another unit waiting for you. Conversely, if you don't use a unit of gas you can save it for later. If you don't use a unit of bandwidth it's gone forever, and it costs the same to maintain the network whether you use it or not.

    Pricing structure should encourage people to conserve gas and electricity. Networks (computer and phone) have to be maximally utilized to provide the lowest cost per packet. Pricing per megabyte discourages maximal utilization which leads to waste.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!