Lint from my pocket inevitably finds it way into the jack. The headphone jack then doesn't fit in properly. I need a needle to pull out the lint. Sometimes this causes my iphone speaker phone to be silenced because the software thinks a headphone jack is plugged in. I hate my 3.5mm jack
https://discussions.apple.com/...
I'm not suggesting that this is the reason that they are eliminating the jack, but it's an added benefit for me. Apple could provide a software option to override the sensor telling the OS that a headphone is plugged in when it really isn't. I don't know why they don't do that.
Bandwidth caps are GOOD. They provide the proper incentive structure for both consumer and ISP
Bandwidth caps meter total usage. ISPs need to control congestion more so than total usage. ISPs should encourage downloading during off-peak hours. If no one is using the internet in the middle of the night and you want your latest linux download, then there should be some incentive to do it at night. Those that want quality of service guarantees during peak hours are the challenge the ISPs need to resolve. Bandwidth caps address this challenge in a very indirect way, and those inefficiencies are born by the retail consumer.
On the consumer side, you can pick an appropriate plan that allows for only the amount of bandwidth that you need, resulting in more effective market segregation. This means low-use consumers don't need to subsidize high-use consumers.
Let's think about the marginal cost of the bit being transferred. The bulk of the cost is to transfer the first bit. This goes for both the low-use consumer and the high-use consumer. The cost to the ISP of the total usage of both the low-use consumer and the high use consumer is nearly identical. Remember, we're talking about usage, not speed. How much does it cost the ISP if I transfer 1000 GB overnight? Some electricity? But there is a cost if I want to do the same during peak hours (degradation of their service to other consumers). Bandwidth caps are unrelated to time of day. A fair and efficient economic internet traffic management practice would make such a distinction. The overage charges are completely fictitious and are not proportional to the real cost of the bits in anyway. I understand they are to recoup upgrades, but I don't buy the argument that the low-use consumer is somehow subsidizing the high-use consumer
Imagine these two situations:
1) You pay $40/month for an unlimited 10Mbps connection, but can only get 10Mbps at 2-4am in the morning. Other times, because of high network usage, you get an unstable connection that goes 3-5Mbps, or even slower during peak times.
2) You pay $40/month for a 10Mbps connection with a 100GB limit. Most of the time, your connection speed is around 10Mbps, but you just need to watch how much you download. There is a tool provided for you by the ISP to check your usage, updated daily.
I would much, MUCH rather go for the second option. I am paying for a certain service. I know the terms of that service. I'm getting exactly what I'm paying for.
Correct, option 1 does not provide a minimum level of service, but neither does option 2. Consider option 2 in practice. Won't you get tired or policing your family's usage? What about unused bandwidth from a previous month, shouldn't you get credit for not being a burden on the network? After you accidentally go over your cap, will you just choose to upgrade your service so you don't have to monitor it as much? Do you want some kind of cost certainty for your internet bill, or do you want it to fluctuate like a cell phone bill due to overage charges? Why would we trust that Bell, Rogers and the CRTC would be capable of determining reasonable caps & overage charges when they have demonstrated so clearly that they are out of touch with reality? If caps are a good solution, and no other country has caps, are we an internet pioneer or are we being bamboozled? Too much smells here. Too many logical inconsistencies.
Instead, they should either allow third-party ISPs to sell VDSL services, or mandate reasonable minimum bandwidth caps and reasonable maximum overage charges.
This is an interesting solution, but how long before the these reasonable caps and overage charges become unreasonable? I think time-of-use based billing would be a better economic ITMP at addressing the problem of congestion better than caps and overages
Slashdot Mirror
Lint from my pocket inevitably finds it way into the jack. The headphone jack then doesn't fit in properly. I need a needle to pull out the lint. Sometimes this causes my iphone speaker phone to be silenced because the software thinks a headphone jack is plugged in. I hate my 3.5mm jack https://discussions.apple.com/... I'm not suggesting that this is the reason that they are eliminating the jack, but it's an added benefit for me. Apple could provide a software option to override the sensor telling the OS that a headphone is plugged in when it really isn't. I don't know why they don't do that.
Bandwidth caps are GOOD. They provide the proper incentive structure for both consumer and ISP
Bandwidth caps meter total usage. ISPs need to control congestion more so than total usage. ISPs should encourage downloading during off-peak hours. If no one is using the internet in the middle of the night and you want your latest linux download, then there should be some incentive to do it at night. Those that want quality of service guarantees during peak hours are the challenge the ISPs need to resolve. Bandwidth caps address this challenge in a very indirect way, and those inefficiencies are born by the retail consumer.
On the consumer side, you can pick an appropriate plan that allows for only the amount of bandwidth that you need, resulting in more effective market segregation. This means low-use consumers don't need to subsidize high-use consumers.
Let's think about the marginal cost of the bit being transferred. The bulk of the cost is to transfer the first bit. This goes for both the low-use consumer and the high-use consumer. The cost to the ISP of the total usage of both the low-use consumer and the high use consumer is nearly identical. Remember, we're talking about usage, not speed. How much does it cost the ISP if I transfer 1000 GB overnight? Some electricity? But there is a cost if I want to do the same during peak hours (degradation of their service to other consumers). Bandwidth caps are unrelated to time of day. A fair and efficient economic internet traffic management practice would make such a distinction. The overage charges are completely fictitious and are not proportional to the real cost of the bits in anyway. I understand they are to recoup upgrades, but I don't buy the argument that the low-use consumer is somehow subsidizing the high-use consumer
Imagine these two situations: 1) You pay $40/month for an unlimited 10Mbps connection, but can only get 10Mbps at 2-4am in the morning. Other times, because of high network usage, you get an unstable connection that goes 3-5Mbps, or even slower during peak times. 2) You pay $40/month for a 10Mbps connection with a 100GB limit. Most of the time, your connection speed is around 10Mbps, but you just need to watch how much you download. There is a tool provided for you by the ISP to check your usage, updated daily.
I would much, MUCH rather go for the second option. I am paying for a certain service. I know the terms of that service. I'm getting exactly what I'm paying for.
Correct, option 1 does not provide a minimum level of service, but neither does option 2. Consider option 2 in practice. Won't you get tired or policing your family's usage? What about unused bandwidth from a previous month, shouldn't you get credit for not being a burden on the network? After you accidentally go over your cap, will you just choose to upgrade your service so you don't have to monitor it as much? Do you want some kind of cost certainty for your internet bill, or do you want it to fluctuate like a cell phone bill due to overage charges? Why would we trust that Bell, Rogers and the CRTC would be capable of determining reasonable caps & overage charges when they have demonstrated so clearly that they are out of touch with reality? If caps are a good solution, and no other country has caps, are we an internet pioneer or are we being bamboozled? Too much smells here. Too many logical inconsistencies.
Instead, they should either allow third-party ISPs to sell VDSL services, or mandate reasonable minimum bandwidth caps and reasonable maximum overage charges.
This is an interesting solution, but how long before the these reasonable caps and overage charges become unreasonable? I think time-of-use based billing would be a better economic ITMP at addressing the problem of congestion better than caps and overages