It's not a popular idea on Slashdot, but a lot of the problems with sponsored data, Net Neutrality, and data caps could be alleviated by switching to a pay-per-usage plan.
The text below is something I posted on Slashdot a while ago that makes the case for pay-per-usage or per-KB plans.
The product that the ISPs are providing is network connectivity and downloads. Under the current system, the business (ISP) attempts to limit the amount of product (downloads) that the customer can purchase. When a business tries to limit how much of their product you can purchase, it should be an indication that the pricing model is broken.
Using a straight pay-per-KB plan would benefit most customers. If your wireless provider doesn't offer service in your area, they don't get paid. Currently, it's in AT&T's best interest to offer the bare minimum connection speeds and coverage just to keep people from changing wireless providers. If a pay-per-KB plan were in place, AT&T would be forced to upgrade their network before they would be paid. It would be in the ISPs' best interest to provide the fastest and most complete coverage. It would also benefit the wireless provider to encourage tethering and VoIP, which are currently restricted in many plans.
The issue of net neutrality could also be solved with a pay-per-KB plan. All packets would be delivered without filtering as quickly as possible to their destinations, regardless of content. If the ISP wants to recoup costs, let them negotiate cost-offsets from the service providers. I, as a consumer, prefer Google over Bing. But, if Microsoft agreed to pay for half of my traffic to Bing, I'd consider switching. The traffic would be delivered at the same speed regardless of the source/destination; it would just cost the consumer less money.
Even as someone who streams a fair amount of video and music, I'd still prefer a pay-per-KB plan. It would certainly give my ISP an incentive to offer me faster download speeds. With a pay-per-KB plan, you could have automated notifications that let you know when your bill hits certain dollar amounts. For instance, my Internet budget is $100 per month, so I'd like a notification when my bill hits $80 so that I know I need to start conserving bandwidth for the remainder of the month.
Also, on months that I travel or decide to read a book instead of watch Netflix movies, I'd like to pay less. The current pricing system does not allow that. If you're not worried about going over the monthly data cap limit because you don't use anywhere near the limit, you're paying too much for your monthly ISP subscription.
I think most people pay for electricity by how much they consume. That's certainly the way it has been everywhere I've lived. While I do try to conserve energy, I don't count the seconds every time I turn on the lights. If I need the lights on or want to watch TV, I do it without thinking about how much I'm paying per second for the energy costs. The Internet could be the same way.
I take your point about electricity being so cheap you don't worry about switching a light on. I suppose if internet access were that cheap it might be okay, but it would have to be about 1000th of current price per KB most ISPs want to charge.
You're absolutely right. Everything I've said falls apart if the ISPs are allowed to rape us on the per-KB charge. And, based on their track records, they're probably going to charge an insanely high rate (at least in the US, I can't speak for ISPs in other countries). The rates for text messages is a clear example. For less than 200 bytes of data each, text messages should essentially be free, but the wireless providers charge a ridiculous premium for them. I don't know why I would expect them to behave any differently on a per-KB charge for Internet, especially for home ISPs where the consumers are frequently forced into a government approved duopoly.
I guess I should be careful what I ask for because I might get it. The ISPs will start charging a per-KB rate, but the rate is so high that people start counting the characters in their emails or, even worse, revert back to porn magazines. Hell, T-Mobile is already offering a pay-per-MB plan, and it's $2 per MB. If I use a gig of traffic each month, which is not unreasonable even on a cell phone, I'm facing a $2,000 bill.
If there is one easy way to damage all internet based business and innovation it is to make the internet more expensive and discourage people from using it as much as they do now.
I completely agree. I just think that a pay-per-KB rate would make the Internet cheaper for a lot of people.
I think most people pay for electricity by how much they consume. That's certainly the way it has been everywhere I've lived. While I do try to conserve energy, I don't count the seconds every time I turn on the lights. If I need the lights on or want to watch TV, I do it without thinking about how much I'm paying per second for the energy costs. The Internet could be the same way.
Well, you seem to be touching on something that's important - when people have to pay for everything they do online, they'll start having to make a decision as to whether that download is worth the money. You'll start seeing a lot less torrents and open access points.
Unfortunately, you're being forced to return to the days of watching the clock or bandwidth counter even without going to a pay-per-KB plan. The article is about capped data plans, which means that you're going to need to monitor your usage each month to avoid overage fees. With a pay-per-KB plan, you could have automated notifications that let you know when your bill hits certain dollar amounts. For instance, my Internet budget is $100 per month, so I'd like a notification when my bill hits $80 so that I know I need to start conserving bandwidth for the remainder of the month.
Also, on months that I travel or decide to read a book instead of watch Netflix movies, I'd like to pay less. The current pricing system does not allow that. If you're not worried about going over the monthly data cap limit because you don't use anywhere near the limit, you're paying too much for your monthly ISP subscription.
I think this is a good idea, and I don't understand the negativity associated with paying per MB. I'd actually prefer a single per MB rate over the tier, but either would be better than the current system.
The product that the ISPs are providing is network connectivity and downloads. Under the current system, the business (ISP) attempts to limit the amount of product (downloads) that the customer can purchase. That should be the first indication that the current pricing model is broken.
Using a straight pay-per-KB plan would benefit most customers. If your wireless provider doesn't offer service in your area, they don't get paid. Currently, it's in AT&T's best interest to offer the bare minimum connection speeds and coverage just to keep people from changing wireless providers. If a pay-per-KB plan were in place, AT&T would not get away with this and would be forced to upgrade their network. It would be in the ISPs' best interest to provide the fastest and most complete coverage. It would also benefit the wireless provider to encourage tethering and VoIP, which are limited based on the current pricing system.
The issue of net neutrality could also be solved with a pay-per-KB plan. All packets would be delivered without filtering as quickly as possible to their destinations, regardless of content. If the ISP wants to recoup costs, let them negotiate cost-offsets from the service providers. I, as a consumer, prefer Google over Bing. But, if Microsoft agreed to pay for half of my traffic to Bing, I'd consider switching. The traffic would be delivered at the same speed regardless of the source/destination; it would just cost the consumer less money.
Even as someone who streams a fair amount of video and music, I'd still prefer a pay-per-KB plan. It would certainly give my ISP an incentive to offer me faster download speeds.
Try taking a look at the products offered by MaxVision. They have products that fit all of your requirements except one - cheap. As others have previously pointed out, what you're asking for is definitely not cheap, but I wouldn't consider it outrageously expensive. Their web site makes it a bit of a pain in the ass to get prices (registration and email required), but I think you could probably find what you're looking for around $10-20K.
But, if you're willing to spend a little more money, I'd definitely take a look at some of the MaxPacs. We've used them in the past and have had very good experiences. They're rugged, portable, and include LCD monitors. I think they sell a lot to the Army for use in Iraq, which doesn't have the best operating conditions either.
This reminds me of the shenanigans of a company closer to home. I'd like to invite these two to work out their emoticon patent issues in the following manner:
From TFA: Engineers looked carefully at Linux, which had already been rewritten for use on mobile phones, but Jobs refused to use someone else's software.
Really? That never stopped him from using FreeBSD or Mach in OS X.
My guess is that it was the GPL that kept Linux out of the iPhone and OS X. This is not meant as a flame against the GPL or Apple, but I am curious if OS X or the iPhone would be based on Linux if they could have gotten it with a BSD license.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a popular idea on Slashdot, but a lot of the problems with sponsored data, Net Neutrality, and data caps could be alleviated by switching to a pay-per-usage plan.
The text below is something I posted on Slashdot a while ago that makes the case for pay-per-usage or per-KB plans.
The product that the ISPs are providing is network connectivity and downloads. Under the current system, the business (ISP) attempts to limit the amount of product (downloads) that the customer can purchase. When a business tries to limit how much of their product you can purchase, it should be an indication that the pricing model is broken.
Using a straight pay-per-KB plan would benefit most customers. If your wireless provider doesn't offer service in your area, they don't get paid. Currently, it's in AT&T's best interest to offer the bare minimum connection speeds and coverage just to keep people from changing wireless providers. If a pay-per-KB plan were in place, AT&T would be forced to upgrade their network before they would be paid. It would be in the ISPs' best interest to provide the fastest and most complete coverage. It would also benefit the wireless provider to encourage tethering and VoIP, which are currently restricted in many plans.
The issue of net neutrality could also be solved with a pay-per-KB plan. All packets would be delivered without filtering as quickly as possible to their destinations, regardless of content. If the ISP wants to recoup costs, let them negotiate cost-offsets from the service providers. I, as a consumer, prefer Google over Bing. But, if Microsoft agreed to pay for half of my traffic to Bing, I'd consider switching. The traffic would be delivered at the same speed regardless of the source/destination; it would just cost the consumer less money.
Even as someone who streams a fair amount of video and music, I'd still prefer a pay-per-KB plan. It would certainly give my ISP an incentive to offer me faster download speeds. With a pay-per-KB plan, you could have automated notifications that let you know when your bill hits certain dollar amounts. For instance, my Internet budget is $100 per month, so I'd like a notification when my bill hits $80 so that I know I need to start conserving bandwidth for the remainder of the month.
Also, on months that I travel or decide to read a book instead of watch Netflix movies, I'd like to pay less. The current pricing system does not allow that. If you're not worried about going over the monthly data cap limit because you don't use anywhere near the limit, you're paying too much for your monthly ISP subscription.
I think most people pay for electricity by how much they consume. That's certainly the way it has been everywhere I've lived. While I do try to conserve energy, I don't count the seconds every time I turn on the lights. If I need the lights on or want to watch TV, I do it without thinking about how much I'm paying per second for the energy costs. The Internet could be the same way.
Posting to un-do an incorrect mod.
I take your point about electricity being so cheap you don't worry about switching a light on. I suppose if internet access were that cheap it might be okay, but it would have to be about 1000th of current price per KB most ISPs want to charge.
You're absolutely right. Everything I've said falls apart if the ISPs are allowed to rape us on the per-KB charge. And, based on their track records, they're probably going to charge an insanely high rate (at least in the US, I can't speak for ISPs in other countries). The rates for text messages is a clear example. For less than 200 bytes of data each, text messages should essentially be free, but the wireless providers charge a ridiculous premium for them. I don't know why I would expect them to behave any differently on a per-KB charge for Internet, especially for home ISPs where the consumers are frequently forced into a government approved duopoly.
I guess I should be careful what I ask for because I might get it. The ISPs will start charging a per-KB rate, but the rate is so high that people start counting the characters in their emails or, even worse, revert back to porn magazines. Hell, T-Mobile is already offering a pay-per-MB plan, and it's $2 per MB. If I use a gig of traffic each month, which is not unreasonable even on a cell phone, I'm facing a $2,000 bill.
If there is one easy way to damage all internet based business and innovation it is to make the internet more expensive and discourage people from using it as much as they do now.
I completely agree. I just think that a pay-per-KB rate would make the Internet cheaper for a lot of people.
I think most people pay for electricity by how much they consume. That's certainly the way it has been everywhere I've lived. While I do try to conserve energy, I don't count the seconds every time I turn on the lights. If I need the lights on or want to watch TV, I do it without thinking about how much I'm paying per second for the energy costs. The Internet could be the same way.
Well, you seem to be touching on something that's important - when people have to pay for everything they do online, they'll start having to make a decision as to whether that download is worth the money. You'll start seeing a lot less torrents and open access points.
Unfortunately, you're being forced to return to the days of watching the clock or bandwidth counter even without going to a pay-per-KB plan. The article is about capped data plans, which means that you're going to need to monitor your usage each month to avoid overage fees. With a pay-per-KB plan, you could have automated notifications that let you know when your bill hits certain dollar amounts. For instance, my Internet budget is $100 per month, so I'd like a notification when my bill hits $80 so that I know I need to start conserving bandwidth for the remainder of the month.
Also, on months that I travel or decide to read a book instead of watch Netflix movies, I'd like to pay less. The current pricing system does not allow that. If you're not worried about going over the monthly data cap limit because you don't use anywhere near the limit, you're paying too much for your monthly ISP subscription.
I think this is a good idea, and I don't understand the negativity associated with paying per MB. I'd actually prefer a single per MB rate over the tier, but either would be better than the current system.
The product that the ISPs are providing is network connectivity and downloads. Under the current system, the business (ISP) attempts to limit the amount of product (downloads) that the customer can purchase. That should be the first indication that the current pricing model is broken.
Using a straight pay-per-KB plan would benefit most customers. If your wireless provider doesn't offer service in your area, they don't get paid. Currently, it's in AT&T's best interest to offer the bare minimum connection speeds and coverage just to keep people from changing wireless providers. If a pay-per-KB plan were in place, AT&T would not get away with this and would be forced to upgrade their network. It would be in the ISPs' best interest to provide the fastest and most complete coverage. It would also benefit the wireless provider to encourage tethering and VoIP, which are limited based on the current pricing system.
The issue of net neutrality could also be solved with a pay-per-KB plan. All packets would be delivered without filtering as quickly as possible to their destinations, regardless of content. If the ISP wants to recoup costs, let them negotiate cost-offsets from the service providers. I, as a consumer, prefer Google over Bing. But, if Microsoft agreed to pay for half of my traffic to Bing, I'd consider switching. The traffic would be delivered at the same speed regardless of the source/destination; it would just cost the consumer less money.
Even as someone who streams a fair amount of video and music, I'd still prefer a pay-per-KB plan. It would certainly give my ISP an incentive to offer me faster download speeds.
Try taking a look at the products offered by MaxVision. They have products that fit all of your requirements except one - cheap. As others have previously pointed out, what you're asking for is definitely not cheap, but I wouldn't consider it outrageously expensive. Their web site makes it a bit of a pain in the ass to get prices (registration and email required), but I think you could probably find what you're looking for around $10-20K.
But, if you're willing to spend a little more money, I'd definitely take a look at some of the MaxPacs. We've used them in the past and have had very good experiences. They're rugged, portable, and include LCD monitors. I think they sell a lot to the Army for use in Iraq, which doesn't have the best operating conditions either.
This reminds me of the shenanigans of a company closer to home. I'd like to invite these two to work out their emoticon patent issues in the following manner:
/\/\ /\
o
|\__o
Before this gets too out of hand, let's make sure that we're all dealing with the facts. A quick Google search shows that Daniel Weitzner is also a lawyer.
"Mr. Weitzner has a degree in law from Buffalo Law School, and a B.A. in Philosophy from Swarthmore College."
Granted, I'd still rather have him advising the president than a former media executive, but he's not exactly Robert Morris.
http://eigentaste.berkeley.edu/user/jokes.php
Everything you need is right here.
Really? That never stopped him from using FreeBSD or Mach in OS X.
My guess is that it was the GPL that kept Linux out of the iPhone and OS X. This is not meant as a flame against the GPL or Apple, but I am curious if OS X or the iPhone would be based on Linux if they could have gotten it with a BSD license.