This is all we need. The problem is not that the providers aren't giving us enough bandwidth (they aren't). The problem is that they care what we spend it on.
I would also mod you up if I had the points. Engineers will solve the engineering problems, but we can't expect them to solve their employers' conflicts of interest.
That's the problem. The pricing model which offers simplicity to the customers is the model which gives the ISP an incentive to promise as much as possible and deliver as little as they can get away with.
I work in the NOC at a high-traffic ISP backend support company. I had to spend 2 years in the tech-support trenches to get in.
While it may seem to you that the light users are all the most annoying callers, it's actually the case that all your most annoying callers are light users. You have thousands and thousands of users who do web browsing and e-mail, know how to do those things, and don't bother with traffic-hungriest apps at all.
They're just so well-behaved that it's easy not to notice them.
The 'pay for GByte' plan is really the ISP taxing purchases and transactions on their current infrastructure. It allows the ISP to oversell their infrastructure EVEN MORE than they do already and provides them with little incentive to improve their network capacity.
I don't see how this can be. when they're charging per gigabyte, then the more gigabytes they can deliver the more dollars they get!
If you're paying a flat rate for your connection, they've already got their money for the month, regardless of how much downloading you do. To maximize revenue, they have an incentive to discourage downloading, as this allows them to cram more flat-rate subscribers onto less infrastructure.
If instead they can levy a charge on every packet they deliver, then they'll want to facilitate your bandwidth consumption however they can.
I will happy pay for my bandwidth by the gigabyte if it is sold at market value. If they set up their pricing to reward lighter use or off-peak use, I will change my downloading habits to take advantage of it.
The ones really being "screwed" under the current model are the light users, who push a good 2 or 3 megabytes a day to check their email and the weather report, don't call tech support very often, and are paying $60 a month to subsidize us compulsive downloaders.
The pricing model used by most broadband providers is designed for simplicity, rather than any real representation of value. A pricing scheme that changed according to demand would be better; users could specify how much they're willing to pay at what times, and the ISP could evaluate all the customers' bids and allocate the bandwidth auction-style.
This pricing model would make sense; bandwidth is priced according to the actual laws of supply and demand, rather than whatever the ISP feels like charging.
The thicker end of the wedge happens when 'enforcement agent' gets defined more broadly, and the mafiAA get to install some of their own mercenaries to start carrying out raids.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool it down. The gas coalesces better when there's no Brownian motion to fling it everywhere.
This is the cleverest comment I've seen all day.
This is all we need. The problem is not that the providers aren't giving us enough bandwidth (they aren't). The problem is that they care what we spend it on.
*sigh*
Because it's funny. While factually accurate, it misconstrues the question in an unexpectedly obvious way.
The most insightful answer here. You may admin the machine remotely all you like but without physical access, the sweet sweet coffee is beyond reach.
to whoever modded this informative:
*whoosh*
I would also mod you up if I had the points. Engineers will solve the engineering problems, but we can't expect them to solve their employers' conflicts of interest.
That's the problem. The pricing model which offers simplicity to the customers is the model which gives the ISP an incentive to promise as much as possible and deliver as little as they can get away with.
I work in the NOC at a high-traffic ISP backend support company. I had to spend 2 years in the tech-support trenches to get in.
While it may seem to you that the light users are all the most annoying callers, it's actually the case that all your most annoying callers are light users. You have thousands and thousands of users who do web browsing and e-mail, know how to do those things, and don't bother with traffic-hungriest apps at all.
They're just so well-behaved that it's easy not to notice them.
I view healthcare as a more fundamental need than BitTorrent.
Henry Ford? Is that you?
;)
(both links go to 'black'
OK, I'm invoking Rule 34. Provide links.
Or more succinctly, they'll work to provide you more movies per month if you're paying them per-movie and not per-month.
I don't see how this can be. when they're charging per gigabyte, then the more gigabytes they can deliver the more dollars they get!
If you're paying a flat rate for your connection, they've already got their money for the month, regardless of how much downloading you do. To maximize revenue, they have an incentive to discourage downloading, as this allows them to cram more flat-rate subscribers onto less infrastructure.
If instead they can levy a charge on every packet they deliver, then they'll want to facilitate your bandwidth consumption however they can.
I will happy pay for my bandwidth by the gigabyte if it is sold at market value. If they set up their pricing to reward lighter use or off-peak use, I will change my downloading habits to take advantage of it.
The ones really being "screwed" under the current model are the light users, who push a good 2 or 3 megabytes a day to check their email and the weather report, don't call tech support very often, and are paying $60 a month to subsidize us compulsive downloaders.
You have made this entire thread worthwhile.
The pricing model used by most broadband providers is designed for simplicity, rather than any real representation of value. A pricing scheme that changed according to demand would be better; users could specify how much they're willing to pay at what times, and the ISP could evaluate all the customers' bids and allocate the bandwidth auction-style.
This pricing model would make sense; bandwidth is priced according to the actual laws of supply and demand, rather than whatever the ISP feels like charging.
That's why ISPs won't do it.
Nope. "Interned" was correct.
"Interred" means burial.
Ok, smartypants. Who is the enemy and what is their governing body?
If we win the war, from whom should we seek a surrender?
Actually the smell of human flatus is already trademarked and sold as "CK One."
The thicker end of the wedge happens when 'enforcement agent' gets defined more broadly, and the mafiAA get to install some of their own mercenaries to start carrying out raids.
enjoy your v&. ;)
Yes, Slashdot. Tell us. What projects *are* most likely to be shut down by government?
Listening attentively,
-US Gov't
Trolls are terribly resourceful things. If you've got any online presence at all they're gonna be able to contact you.
Didn't you hear? The Children Of The Future are composed entirely of feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.