Telcos Back Off On Net Neutrality? For A Price.
from the there's-a-fee-for-that-too dept
Telcos are looking at new pricing models that could end the debate over network neutrality -- by allowing consumers to access anything they want, just charging different prices for different types of content. Surfing web pages would carry one cost, while, say watching streaming video would cost another (and presumably stuff like downloading movies from BitTorrent would be priced astronomically). It would appear this strategy could be implemented even if new regulations requiring network neutrality are enacted, since it wouldn't bar people from accessing whatever they want, just making them pay for the privilege. The strategy would fit in nicely with the telcos'
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Akin to something like 'dis........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love the last line...
This is absolutely hilarious.
Why give the people what they want, they don't really know anything anyway.
You have got to love big business....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would you do
I don't see how this approach on the subject is in line with your corporate objective of providing business intelligence? What business is helped by this analysis?
What exactly would you like to see big Telco do? Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would you do
Because, if you hadn't noticed (and it appears you haven't), the telcos are in a bit of a monopoly position. Hopefully, that's changing -- but it's still the case right now. So, they're in a position to do things that harm everyone.
And, they're trying to pull the wool over consumers' eyes with their claims -- so why shouldn't we stand up and point out what they're really doing?
I don't see how this approach on the subject is in line with your corporate objective of providing business intelligence? What business is helped by this analysis?
What we write on Techdirt doesn't need to be connected to Techdirt Corporate Intelligence. However, the point of our analysis is to make people aware of what telcos are trying to do. And, don't you think that if the telcos do what's described above it will impact a TON of companies?
And, honestly, we think that it's the TELCOS who will benefit most from our analysis. They're hurting themselves here by shrinking their own market. That's the point we're making. It's not that they're completely destroying their own market, but the are shrinking it, and taking down a lot of other businesses in the process.
What exactly would you like to see big Telco do? Seriously?
Sell connectivity. That's all. They can offer additional services on top of it, but it's the open connectivity that is valuable -- and they don't seem to understand this. If they recognized how valuable open connectivity was, they would be in a much better position to capitalize on that. Instead, they think only about closed connectivity, as that's how they've historically made money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would you do
They have been selling open connectivity up until now. Unlimited local calling (federally mandated, but still a fact), unlimited usage of internet access (within reason... 0.01% will always exploit). Businesses buy lease lines with internet access typically provided by whomever you want via frame or IP services. Once the baby bells could sell Long Distance they went to flat rate pricing there. I don't understand where you get the historical precedent about closed connectivity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would you do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would you do
Greedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would you do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would you do
Strangely, this point is rarely discussed. If telcos charged according to the content (as opposed to merely volume), would they still be considered common carriers? If they were no longer common carriers, then couldn't they be held liable for any illegal activity that occurs on their system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would you do
Andrew, not really sure how to respond to you if you actually think this is the case.
The telcos have done everything possible to remain as closed as possible for as long as possible. Every bit of opening was pushed on them by the gov't and resisted.
I think we may just have a very different definition of "open".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would you do
The back-end of the internet needs to remain the same. If a pricing model has to change, make it on the front-end, where the consumer gets to decide. Paying for your time or which application/service you're using is worthless. However a tiered access model may be just right. For example, $9.95 for 1Mbps down, $16.95 for 2Mbps down and so on. The telcos could even offer services on top of that: increased QoS $4.95/month, static IP (bad example, I know) $1.95/month. Have us pay for the connection that serves our purposes and then let us choose what content we want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservation what?
You might argue that it creates congestion for everyone, but talk about the real-world here... I do watch streamed videos, I surf the web, etc. and I'd say 99% of my pages come up within 2-3 sec. on my browser. So... are you concerned about the 1% of the pages that take anywhere from 10-30 sec. to load up? Perhaps you haven't taken into consideration that many of these slower sites have slow servers or maybe their connection is slow because they're hosting it for cheap?
Let's face it, the ISP's simply want more money and anyone who argues for them to do this clearly makes too much money or works for an ISP. I do however agree with the tiered CONNECTION as suggested above, because I'm paying for the faster service with my ISP now and that is the way they have it setup now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What would you do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I rarely disagree with these posts...
The prices will be as competitive as they are now, if not more so, because the new transparency will compell bandwidth conservation. $50 a meg would be crippling, but what about $.50 per gig?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I rarely disagree with these posts...
It achieves the same goal of this two-tier Internet that the telcos want, while not techically throwing away network neutrality. The carrier's not discriminating against any sort of content in terms of delivery, available bandwidth or QoS, just using discriminatory pricing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I rarely disagree with these posts...
IMHO, If we do see everyone being charged per gig we will see somewhat of a backlash against sites with a lot of intensive ads. If I have to pay to ignore your video ad for something I won't go to that site, the same goes for flash and pop-ups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I rarely disagree with these posts...
Furthermore, as an end user, I am not sure how companies such as Google, Yahoo, or iTunes, pay for their bandwidth usage, but I assume that they do pay a variable charge based on the bandwidth used. When someone (or a company) is using hundreds of gigabytes of data bandwidth (if not terabytes) this method of pricing makes sense, for the consumer, however, I think it is a pretty lame idea.
What we all have to remember is that the Telcos have been FEDERALLY subsidized and given billions of yours and my tax dollars to create a network that they have yet to deliver. I am also reminded about a story I read where Verizon was hording 80% (I could be off a bit) of their network's bandwidth for future TV via IP offerings.
I say to the Telcos and everyone here, the Telcos need to be creative, not greedy. Create something of value, something that I cannot live without and I will happily pay for it, but don't try and charge me more to use my current service, that’s simply price extortion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I rarely disagree with these posts...
Last time I checked, there are bandwith caps on access they provide. I.e I am not going to get 10mbps of bandwith if I am on a 768kbps dsl line right?
Furthermore these providers make just as much money off people who do not use the service fully as those who abuse the service.
This is just a case of these telco companies failing to be innovative enough to find new services to offer the consumers before a 3rd party comes out with a service at a fair price the avg consumer will gobble up. (Read: VOIP).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still a double charge (probably)
The internet is becoming a different beast than it's early days. As more and more technology moves to packet based digital delivery, things change significantly. TV, phone, computer communications, etc. all potentially come from any number of providers. That means the cosy world of content is no longer pinned to just a few providers. Example, IPTV will eventually eliminate the need for TV over-the-air broadcasts. That means no more need for TV channels or TV network companies. One off content producers could create a TV show and sell it by subscription service (or by ad support). The big networks are cut out (same problem being faced by the RIAA and MPAA). IP based phones that can find each other over the net wouldn't even need a phone number. Packet based digital delivery is a disruptive technology that is just getting started.
The whole tiered internet idea would only work if all ISP providers had equal access to every potential subscriber. Something I bet the Telcos are not willing to accept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
like any big business...
"It doesn't matter that I... err... *we*... made eleventy billion dollars this year! We have to make another billion this year or I cant get my 30th Ferrari!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
they just want a piece of everyone elses pie
its puuuure jealous greed
theyd charge people to breath if it was possible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]