Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andygrif
I'm coming into this discussion a little late, but the thread did make interesting reading.
|
np. good to have you here
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andygrif
However, important as the internet is (and as much as I hate these silly analogies which bear no relation to a unique product, e.g cars) they did it with water meters, and water is a matter is a matter of life and death.
|
as above, the cost of providing water _is_ incremental on usage. The argument with modern packet based digital networks is that it is not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andygrif
Another angle is that internet providers buy bandwidth based on useage. However, why is this? If I am an ISp and I pay for 1TB link, surely I should be negotiating a price based on using the 1TB, not if I use half of it. If it is good enough for the ISP's to charge their customers on this bases, why don't they negotiate the same deal with their providers?
|
Almost all transit bandwidth bought by ISP's is not paid for by usage. They pay a flat rate for a certain size of connection, regardless of how much they use it. Why is that ? Because almost all of the cost of such bandwidth are fixed, regardless of usage
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andygrif
I think the bottom line for most people can be summed up pretty easily - neither for nor against, as long as it works well and doesn't cost any more a month.
|
I would like to see both options available to users. Pay for MS's used and flat rate. Both are commercialy viable.