[bug_user]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...-internet.html

[thumbdown] is all I have to say. Companies really love keeping people from using the internet in america.

[johnuioyer]

I just don't understand the point of offering all that bandwidth then restricting data usage. Actually, I think I just answered my own question.

[GitaraMoya]

The two largest U.S. wireless carriers agree that the days of unlimited Internet cellphone access are numbered. [thumbdown]

Help us Google you're our only hope.

[grubnismarl]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...-internet.html

[thumbdown] is all I have to say. Companies really love keeping people from using the internet in america.

To be honest they need to start charging a per MB tariff. If you want to use a **** load of electricity you pay more than the average customer, if you want to you use a **** load of gas you pay more than the average customer. So if you want to use a **** load of bandwidth you should also pay more than the average customer. They should also have on peak and off peak hours, do all your downloading between 12-6AM you should pay half.

And this doesn't make sense to me...

"Moving to a model like gas or water utilities could mean more conservative usage and less innovation. Now, from a bedroom, anyone can be a video or radio broadcaster."

Why should it limit innovation. It could well advance it as people go to great lengths to limit bandwidth usage. Could mean new means of compression, etc. I don't really understand why some people think that the internet ought to be a privilege they can abuse. I still remember the 400 pound phone bill when I was a kid access the BBS on my 2400 baud modem.

[sPncEjF7]

To be honest they need to start charging a per MB tariff. If you want to use a **** load of electricity you pay more than the average customer, if you want to you use a **** load of gas you pay more than the average customer. So if you want to use a **** load of bandwidth you should also pay more than the average customer. They should also have on peak and off peak hours, do all your downloading between 12-6AM you should pay half.

Being in the energy industry I will tell you that is not true. Industry normally take bids on contracts for power. For axample, the refinery next door has a contract to pay for electricity at $60 a MW or $0.06 a kW. The averge homeownder is going to pay somehwere between $0.08 - $0.12 a kW around here. So it seems to me if you use a **** load of electricuty you get a discount, which is true. Same thing goes for Natural and LP gas. Its sold in bulk to companies and usually the more Cubic yards you use the less you pay per cubic yard. Of course the average homeowner is paying a couple hundred dollars a month on electricity and maybe ten to 30 dollars on gas, and these large industrial blocks are paying into the millions, but they are using a **** load.

If I'm not mistaken this whole bandwidth dilema is these companies found a way to utilize unused frequencies to make more money. Good for the company, good for shareholders. Now its getting to the point where more people have a smart phone and are wirelessly using the internet. So instead of spending the money to upgrade their current infra structure or develope new technology (because god forbid they take a hit on the next quarter earnings) they want to make you pay more for less, so they can continue to show shareholders how awesome they are at doing more with less (make more money and spending less to do it)

I remember the huge phone bills myself when phonelines were the popular way to get on-line. Then some cable comapnies came out and said "we have a metric ass ton of unused bandwidth on our communication lines" and then came the cable modem! When it first came out I remember getting it for less than $30 a month and having a really fast connection. Now becuase of the widespread use of cable modems and bandwidth issues, these companies have been talking about charging a rate for that usage as well.

They were fine with it when it was making their stock explode, but now that its become a stability and realiability issue. The right answer was always to charge at a rate, and at the same time develope better technology to increase bandwidth. Slow growth and smaller CEO's bonuses will not be tolerated...

[GitaraMoya]

I once had a $350 long distance phone bill, actually my parents, but I paid it. I got caught muff diving on my girlfriend with a mirror in my hand. Her mom was supposed to be bowling.

Anyways they sent her away for a month in the summer.

[FotoCihasWewb]

I could see AT&T wanting to do it. I have heard that with the great success of the iPhone, AT&T is having a hard time upgrading their system to keep up with the bandwidth demand.

If these companies do that, there will always be someone else out there that won't restrict data.


I think that the energy consumption idea doesn't really work. Those guys have to produce a product the instant that you require that product. With internet, these guys don't have to produce anything, the series of tubes are already there. All they have to do it expand apon if and when it is needed.
Internet is the same idea like TV service or phone service. The foundation is already there, the companies only provide the doors. If you charge for usage on internet, and use the energy consumption idea, then the same thing needs to be reapplied to land lines and TV service.


If you want to use the same idea for energy, it would be like the power companies have the power lines up, but instead of having to produce a product, they just open a release valve that is plugged into the earth that restricts the amount of energy that is released into the power lines instead of actually producing it.

TV, Internet, Phone, there is no production of a product. You pay your bill so that they can maintain their infrastructure and to expand apon it in areas that are needed. Websites, and TV shows are the product, of which they do not produce.
For energy, you have to pay so that they can not only expand, and maintain a infrastructure, but so that they can also provide you a product.

[grubnismarl]

I think that the energy consumption idea doesn't really work. Those guys have to produce a product the instant that you require that product. With internet, these guys don't have to produce anything, the series of tubes are already there.

Either way you look at it though both are finite and limited by the infrastructure they were built on. The more of a finite "resource" you use the more of a share of the cost you should pay. Whether you pay per MB or in blocks like with texts or minutes (much like the iPad's data options) I don't have a problem with it but I do feel that you shouldn't be allowed to call a plan unlimited if it is not. I remember looking at AT&T phones a couple of years ago and they had three progressively unlimited plans but none of them were actually unlimited.

[Vcwdldva]

I wonder what Sprint is going to do....

[Kamendoriks]

[thumbdown]

Help us Google you're our only hope.

Exactly, I can't wait for Google to get into this business and absolutely destroy the competition.

You offer massive bandwidth but restrict data plans to limited? It's the 21st century! This is not how you make money. You offer full unlimited and non restrictive bandwidth, advertise that the other company doesn't have it but you do for the same or lesser price, and make a ton of moneys.

[Ruidselisse]

[thumbdown]

Help us Google you're our only hope.

my guess is it will be walmart, seeing as they are getting into the phone business ala MetroPCS

[Vcwdldva]

my guess is it will be walmart, seeing as they are getting into the phone business ala MetroPCS

Doesn't Metro use sprint towers?

I know boost and virgin do...

[hojutok]

Not surprising the see Verizon push for this.

Verizon likes to nickle and dime people for every little thing. Pay $3 for a ringtone or $10 for a game? Well if you get a new phone, don't expect them to help tranfer them over, you're gonna have to pay full price for that same ringtone and game.

It's a good thing I found out about the trick to email myself ringtones onto my phone through multimedia txt messaging to bypass their restrictions. They even lock the phones so that you can't use a mp3 on the memory card as a ringtone.