Once sufficient bandwidth is in place, it costs an ISP nothing if you're downloading at 1 MB/s or 1 GB/s. Other people may suffer at the hands of your use of the total bandwidth at your area of the Internet...
And some of them will switch to another broadband ISP if one's available, costing the original ISP a customer and their money.
So in other words, it costs the ISP more when you're downloading at 1 GB/s than when your network connection is idle.
Next, at the risk of turning this into an economics lesson, I'd like to focus everyone's attention on the careful way you qualified your statement:
Once sufficient bandwidth is in place...
What is "sufficient" bandwidth? To an ISP customer, it might be such abundance that it never slows down during peak periods. In other words, the amount where the marginal revenue from adding more bandwidth is zero because already no customers ever see the network slow down. In other words, where MR = 0 no matter what MC (marginal cost) is.
But in the real world, at least where a company wants to maximize their profit, they will provide just enough of the product or service that the marginal revenue from increasing it equals the cost of increasing it (MR = MC), because any more would turn from a positive return to a negative return. This is why restaurants tend to fill up once or twice per day or per week. If they didn't, the tables and chairs and floor area that they have to rent or amortize and pay taxes on would go wasted more of the time, meaning that they overbuilt the restaurant. (Don't believe me? Next time you're waiting in line to get into a restaurant, ask to speak the owner and then try to make an economic case for them to expand the dining area. Good luck!)
Similarly, a network that never sees any slowdown is also overbuilt.
transmitting data over a network doesn't actually consume anything, now does it?
A 100 megabit network can only move 100 megabits in a second, so a person moving 100 mbps is consuming the entire network. Nobody else can use the network without the first person reducing their consumption accordingly. Yes, the network will make another 100 megabits available a second from now, just like the Oreo factory will make another Oreo to replace the previous one, but that doesn't mean either bits or Oreos are "unlimited."
High fuel prices punish the people who are already struggling, on tight budgets.
This is why it ought to be a revenue neutral carbon tax where the revenues are distributed to everyone equally. Maybe your wallet wouldn't notice that extra $500 check from the government, but it would be a windfall for someone on a fixed income.
Yes, I suppose you can make the case that doxxing (also junk mail and telemarketing calls) should be protected by the 1st Amendment, but do you really want to live in a world like that?
...because people tend to max out their bandwidth all at the same time during the day, creating a headache for network data management. To encourage people to schedule their torrents to throttle back during the day, ISPs should make their data caps only apply during peak usage periods, similar to "unlimited nights and weekends" cell phone plans.
There's a service called NightShift that helps people watch Netflix on bandwidth-constrained connections like dialup. It works by scheduling downloads to occur overnight so they're ready to watch the next day. Netflix could do something similar to bypass time-of-use data caps. "Do you wish to stream this program now or download to watch later? [Stream] [Download]" Then the ISPs might realize that the data caps don't need to apply to overnight downloads.
Sometimes a studio will bring in the dailies and have him start picking stuff knowing that the actual film might not even have the scenes after the final edit.
But label the 80% charge "100" and the 100% level as 120 (no percentages)
Or 125, because 100 is 25% more than 80.
It would also be good to have a "storage charge" feature which keeps it charged at 40-50%, for battery powered devices that you leave plugged in most of the time, like laptop workstations.
No, I don't get to choose my cable ISP. So if my neighbors chose the incumbent, I would be no worse off than today, and potentially much better off because it opens up the possibility of new choices in the future. Competition is good, right?
Could eminent domain be used to terminate those franchise rights, seize ownership of the wires (with appropriate compensation), and let the homeowner or neighborhood choose the ISP?
Slashdot Mirror
Substituting "cameras" for "eyes," why can't a driverless car have all of the above?
And some of them will switch to another broadband ISP if one's available, costing the original ISP a customer and their money.
So in other words, it costs the ISP more when you're downloading at 1 GB/s than when your network connection is idle.
Next, at the risk of turning this into an economics lesson, I'd like to focus everyone's attention on the careful way you qualified your statement:
What is "sufficient" bandwidth? To an ISP customer, it might be such abundance that it never slows down during peak periods. In other words, the amount where the marginal revenue from adding more bandwidth is zero because already no customers ever see the network slow down. In other words, where MR = 0 no matter what MC (marginal cost) is.
But in the real world, at least where a company wants to maximize their profit, they will provide just enough of the product or service that the marginal revenue from increasing it equals the cost of increasing it (MR = MC), because any more would turn from a positive return to a negative return. This is why restaurants tend to fill up once or twice per day or per week. If they didn't, the tables and chairs and floor area that they have to rent or amortize and pay taxes on would go wasted more of the time, meaning that they overbuilt the restaurant. (Don't believe me? Next time you're waiting in line to get into a restaurant, ask to speak the owner and then try to make an economic case for them to expand the dining area. Good luck!)
Similarly, a network that never sees any slowdown is also overbuilt.
A 100 megabit network can only move 100 megabits in a second, so a person moving 100 mbps is consuming the entire network. Nobody else can use the network without the first person reducing their consumption accordingly. Yes, the network will make another 100 megabits available a second from now, just like the Oreo factory will make another Oreo to replace the previous one, but that doesn't mean either bits or Oreos are "unlimited."
Yes, and correcting negative externalities makes the market more efficient.
That's another good point: it would create jobs.
So what's the downside?
This is why it ought to be a revenue neutral carbon tax where the revenues are distributed to everyone equally. Maybe your wallet wouldn't notice that extra $500 check from the government, but it would be a windfall for someone on a fixed income.
Did you know that electric trains don't need to carry their own power source? True story!
Yes, I suppose you can make the case that doxxing (also junk mail and telemarketing calls) should be protected by the 1st Amendment, but do you really want to live in a world like that?
If they could reduce rolling resistance by replacing rubber wheels and asphalt roads with steel, then we would be back to 19th century technology.
Why must the organization that owns and maintains the physical wires also control the traffic that runs across the wire?
...because people tend to max out their bandwidth all at the same time during the day, creating a headache for network data management. To encourage people to schedule their torrents to throttle back during the day, ISPs should make their data caps only apply during peak usage periods, similar to "unlimited nights and weekends" cell phone plans.
There's a service called NightShift that helps people watch Netflix on bandwidth-constrained connections like dialup. It works by scheduling downloads to occur overnight so they're ready to watch the next day. Netflix could do something similar to bypass time-of-use data caps. "Do you wish to stream this program now or download to watch later? [Stream] [Download]" Then the ISPs might realize that the data caps don't need to apply to overnight downloads.
Um, I think I would learn more in a class of 20 motivated students than in a class with only 2 motivated students..
That explains this story.
Isn't forced labor the definition of slavery?
Or a really long railgun.
Or 125, because 100 is 25% more than 80.
It would also be good to have a "storage charge" feature which keeps it charged at 40-50%, for battery powered devices that you leave plugged in most of the time, like laptop workstations.
Did the autopilot function as designed?
That other regional operator can tell when the caller ID data is spoofed. They just need to stop allowing those calls to go through.
Yes, that's the reason for the massive incentives.
Exactly, because I don't have fiber to my home, and DSL has been deregulated such that it's no better than cable.
For a year or so, yes, until it's time to choose again.
So, multiple sellers competing with each other is not "competition"? That doesn't make logical sense.
No, I don't get to choose my cable ISP. So if my neighbors chose the incumbent, I would be no worse off than today, and potentially much better off because it opens up the possibility of new choices in the future. Competition is good, right?
Could eminent domain be used to terminate those franchise rights, seize ownership of the wires (with appropriate compensation), and let the homeowner or neighborhood choose the ISP?
So in a multiple item auction, the only way to prevent more people from winning than there are items is to add more items as needed? That's funny!
You don't need constant delivery, you only need to make sure that electrical generation is always greater than electrical demand.
They used to locate grocery stores on railroad spurs, but not since the trucking industry became so massively subsidized.
Because road wear is a function of the fourth power of the weight, the fees should be:
A 540-pound motorcycle pays $0.0013/mile
A 3,470-pound SUV pays $0.347/mile
An 80,000 pound semi trailer pays $4,252/mile