all this BS about selling you a 'bandwidth' then restricting/throttling based on usage or media type is crap. i would prefer a pipe and a speed...but 'by the bit' pricing makes since for some users...
Because a lot of what people download is embedded in webpages. It may be fairer to impose an extra cost for very large downloads, i.e. a bunch of movies or so, but a person can end up with a pretty high download total just from reading news with embedded videos and ads every day.
We're beating up on the poor quite enough; let's not continue down this route.
3. An early net, QLink, for Commodore/Amiga users...
used to charge .08/minute for connection. Bills used to soar. To start charging a 'bit' rate now would just about kill the internet for all but the wealthiest users. Ummm...and what would happen to all the new technologies and equipment then?
Sounds as if the phone companies are getting greedy again.
but if you think there is no justification for charging by the bit...what should the charge criteria be? data rate vs. data consumed has long been a question that is valid for mobile users...why not stationary consumers?
nice to see you are being obtuse/belligerent this evening. the point is that either method of charging for internet usage is valid... but you want to act like they are somehow so different... goodnight and thanks for totally avoiding answering the questions posed to you. nice job of dancing and avoiding my point...you must be a politician...
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.