Bandwidth is a scarce resource, and scarce resources should be charged, to moderate demand.
If everyone paid per byte for their internet access there would be almost no lag, because people would be more careful about their usage.
And ISPs would have a direct incentive to provide better service, because being able to pass more traffic would immediately generate revenue.
Don't be under the illusion that if we had unmetered phone calls in Europe, the telecoms companies would collect less revenue: it would just be collected in fixed charge not in call charges. The question of reducing telecoms' profits is entirely orthogonal to the question of whether the charge is a fixed one or a metered one.
Many people in Europe have been calling for North American-style free local phone calls, at least to ISPs. I disagree.
I'm probably in the minority here. But let me give my reasons.
First, let's remember that the choice is not actually between free and charged calls. It's between a metered and a flat-rate service. Reducing the telcos profits is an entirely separate question, unrelated to the issue of "free" calls.
I would like to see a per-megabyte, rather than per-minute, charge for internet access. The advantages of this would be 1) It reduces demand to what people really want. 2) It provides an incentive for ISPs to increase their bandwidth up to what customers want to use, because being able to send more traffic immediately increases their revenue.
In my opinion, the main reason that the internet is so clogged up, especially on intercontinental links, is precisely because of unmetered access, so that 1) and 2) don't happen. People have no incentive to control their demand, and ISPs have little incentive to expand their links above what they can get away with.
By reducing the load on the network, everything would work more efficiently. Bandwidth would not need to grow as fast, and the network would be cheaper to build.
So I think the choice is between watching the clock, or a higher flat-rate charge. I prefer the clock. YMMV.
"I'm sure the majority of European Internet users would prefer to pay £10-£20 a month to an ISP and get free calls, rather than pay nothing to an ISP and pay for per minute access to a telecom operator."
Well, there are already ISPs in the UK who operate on this basis. But they're losing customers at the expense of the "free" (call charge only) ISPs. So it seems that the customers disagree with you.
Sorry, that one's not even funny, just stupid. As if someone released a news story saying "President Clinton announced today that he was divorcing Hilary to marry Monica" HA! HA! HA!
Slashdot Mirror
Bandwidth is a scarce resource, and scarce resources should be charged, to moderate demand.
If everyone paid per byte for their internet access there would be almost no lag, because people would be more careful about their usage.
And ISPs would have a direct incentive to provide better service, because being able to pass more traffic would immediately generate revenue.
Don't be under the illusion that if we had unmetered phone calls in Europe, the telecoms companies would collect less revenue: it would just be collected in fixed charge not in call charges. The question of reducing telecoms' profits is entirely orthogonal to the question of whether the charge is a fixed one or a metered one.
Many people in Europe have been calling for North American-style free local phone calls, at least to ISPs. I disagree.
I'm probably in the minority here. But let me give my reasons.
First, let's remember that the choice is not actually between free and charged calls. It's between a metered and a flat-rate service. Reducing the telcos profits is an entirely separate question, unrelated to the issue of "free" calls.
I would like to see a per-megabyte, rather than per-minute, charge for internet access. The advantages of this would be
1) It reduces demand to what people really want.
2) It provides an incentive for ISPs to increase their bandwidth up to what customers want to use, because being able to send more traffic immediately increases their revenue.
In my opinion, the main reason that the internet is so clogged up, especially on intercontinental links, is precisely because of unmetered access, so that 1) and 2) don't happen. People have no incentive to control their demand, and ISPs have little incentive to expand their links above what they can get away with.
By reducing the load on the network, everything would work more efficiently. Bandwidth would not need to grow as fast, and the network would be cheaper to build.
So I think the choice is between watching the clock, or a higher flat-rate charge. I prefer the clock. YMMV.
I too have had almost no problems with Freeserve (except when they stopped allowing scripted logins). It works for me.
Quite amazing really that they managed to roll it all out properly while subscribing 10,000 new customers every day.
"I'm sure the majority of European Internet users would prefer to pay £10-£20 a month to an ISP and get free calls, rather than pay nothing to an ISP and pay for per minute access to a telecom operator."
Well, there are already ISPs in the UK who operate on this basis. But they're losing customers at the expense of the "free" (call charge only) ISPs. So it seems that the customers disagree with you.
Sorry, that one's not even funny, just stupid. As if someone released a news story saying "President Clinton announced today that he was divorcing Hilary to marry Monica" HA! HA! HA!
That's my opinion anyway.
?
Why does 'Weather in Hell' come between B and C? ITWSBT.