I wonder how long before ISP's will switch to a per use billing scheme like power.

[Hugo Drax]

Now that net neutrality might come into effect I wonder how long before a bulb goes over the CEOs and they decide to switch to a per gigabyte billing scheme?

Something like 1 dollar a gigabyte for example.

They can then blame it on Obama.

They would just charge you just like using electricity.

Never underestimate the big corporation figuring out how to work the system.

 

[Nograts]

Dude for 1$ a gig I would gladly switch. It'd be like 10 bucks a month for Internet for me :awe:

 

[Markbnj]

Yeah sign me up for $1/gig.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Saying you'll pay $1/gb is very short sighted. At some point everything will be streaming. Now, if you simply have no use for the internet, then that is something, but I would imagine most here do.

I agree though, ISP's will figure out how to use this to their advantage. The fight isn't over.

 

[jlee]

$1/GB would be shitty. I think I'm generally around 100GB/mo with four people.

 

[master_shake_]

a buck for something that costs fractions of a penny!

sign me up as an isp.

mark up like that was meant for diamonds not bandwidth.

 

[destrekor]

Yeah sign me up for $1/gig.

Hell no. Just... hell no.

I wouldn't want to be surprised with $200 or higher internet bills. Sure, the occasional $25 bill would be awesome, and I think I once saw I was averaging 40GBs for a few months when I had been paying attention.

This month I've used 77GB.

 

[Grooveriding]

$1 per gig ?!?!?! Are you all insane. Between Steam game downloads, Netflix streaming and HD Youtube, that rate would increase our monthly internet bill by about 5x.

$1 per gig is a huge ripoff, more like .05c a gig.

 

[SSSnail]

It doesn't matter if they retain net neutrality or not, the real liberation of the isp monopolies is to allow municipal to start their own isps, or allow competition. This is just bullshit.

 

[gamefreakgcb]

It doesn't matter if they retain net neutrality or not, the real liberation of the isp monopolies is to allow municipal to start their own isps, or allow competition. This is just bullshit.

I think that was voted on before the Title II classification.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/26/8114205/fcc-decision-municipal-broadband-internet/in/7742856

 

[lxskllr]

$1 per gig ?!?!?! Are you all insane. Between Steam game downloads, Netflix streaming and HD Youtube, that rate would increase our monthly internet bill by about 5x.

$1 per gig is a huge ripoff, more like .05c a gig.

Should be priced the same as hard drive space.

 

[Grooveriding]

Should be priced the same as hard drive space.

If we are talking mechanical hard drives then I can get behind that pricing.

 

[Carson Dyle]

I'd like to hear how/why the OP thinks the recent net neutrality ruling would have an effect on how or why ISPs would bill per byte.

ISPs in many other parts of the world do bill for actual usage, so this certainly wouldn't be anything new. But it's much less common in the US. Comcast already has areas in the US where they bill for usage over a 300GB/month allowance that they're calling trial areas. What they're really trialing are customer acceptance of the usage caps (or tiers) and seeing what usage patterns and revenues look like when such caps are in place.

http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/data-usage-trials/

 

[etrigan420]

Mmmmm, I'm thinking "no thanks" to $1/GB...

 

[lxskllr]

If we are talking mechanical hard drives then I can get behind that pricing.

Platter drive prices for home use, SSD prices for mobile.

 

[SSSnail]

I think that was voted on before the Title II classification.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/26/8114205/fcc-decision-municipal-broadband-internet/in/7742856

Next up - behead all lobbyists.

 

[LegendKiller]

Depends on how much Comcast gets charged per gig.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I'd like to hear how/why the OP thinks the recent net neutrality ruling would have an effect on how or why ISPs would bill per byte.

ISPs in many other parts of the world do bill for actual usage, so this certainly wouldn't be anything new. But it's much less common in the US. Comcast already has areas in the US where they bill for usage over a 300GB/month allowance that they're calling trial areas. What they're really trialing are customer acceptance of the usage caps (or tiers) and seeing what usage patterns and revenues look like when such caps are in place.

http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/data-usage-trials/

Yeah I don't either. If they pull that the FCC will likely utilize something like local loop unbundling and that will effectively dismantle the ISPs (plus they'll have fun claiming the government is taking control of their lines when the government subsidized the hell out of them in the first place, both directly and indirectly). The major telecoms can have fun trying to compete with metered billing when hundreds of ISPs pop up that will be offering unlimited for less than the ISPs are offering now.

The FCC is already investigating the telecoms use of caps, so if they even hint at metered billing the FCC will be all over them, and likely there will be even more investigation (FTC, maybe even the Justice Department).

On top of that, let them have fun trying to pull that and then Google will be overwhelmed with cities begging them to come in, as well as cities building their own.

 

[BeeBoop]

4k Netflix streaming uses 7gigs an hour. All television sets will be 4k this Christmas. If you have a family, you'll be yelling at your kids every month about data.

 

[jpiniero]

The major telecoms can have fun trying to compete with metered billing when hundreds of ISPs pop up that will be offering unlimited for less than the ISPs are offering now.

Rolling fiber is extremely expensive. Google got away with it because they were able to get very good deals on already laid fiber from companies that had gone bust trying to start up. On top of that, they could justify the costs by data mining the customer information to no end. Some mom and pop isn't going to be able to do that.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I think that was voted on before the Title II classification.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/26/8114205/fcc-decision-municipal-broadband-internet/in/7742856

Sadly I don't think it's as far reaching as hoped, as it really is just about the two situations, but it provides precedent, and the FCC has already said they're looking into this, my guess is they're going to apply pressure to try and get the states to undo the laws.

 

[destrekor]

4k Netflix streaming uses 7gigs an hour. All television sets will be 4k this Christmas. If you nhave a family, you'll be yelling at your kids every month about data.

All new TVs at the end of 2015 will most definitely NOT be 4K. Will there be options to choose amongst? Absolutely.
The only option for new sets? Nope.

But there will be more, and that trend will continue, on that you are correct.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I like the principal behind a strictly metered billing practice, but I remain skeptical of an effective implementation. There is a certain peace of mind that comes with a fixed monthly bill. I suppose people would just learn to adapt.

I'd rather see infrastructure improved to the point where the supply of bandwidth more greatly exceeded the demand for it.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Rolling fiber is extremely expensive. Google got away with it because they were able to get very good deals on already laid fiber from companies that had gone bust trying to start up. On top of that, they could justify the costs by data mining the customer information to no end. Some mom and pop isn't going to be able to do that.

They won't have to. Cities will subsidize the cost. They're already doing that (there's more and more cities that are laying their own or getting their energy company to do it, and then they hire other companies to actually administer the network once it's in place). How do you think the major telecoms rolled out their fiber? Verizon alone got $5billion to do it in New Jersey, and then got the state government to let them half ass it (not finish what they promised in order to get the deal).

Not only that, but Google rolled plenty of their own fiber, in fact they had to deal with AT&T trying to prevent them by screwing with pole access in Austin (and I know the incumbent ISPs made complaints in Kansas City over it). There's plenty of companies that would be able to roll out fiber as well as the major ISPs, so don't even act like that's the actual issue, the issue is that many cities get locked into deals with the major telecoms. That's not all bad but there's plenty of places where that's not good, mostly because it limits competition.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Yeah I don't either.

Whoa.

I didn't say that I don't think it will happen. It could very well happen.But if it does, it's not likely to have anything to do with net neutrality.

The bigger problem is (and will be for some time) that these companies operate in virtual monopolies within their service areas. That Comcast only (heh) charges me $79/month for internet service is only due to their good grace. There's very little (nothing, actually) to keep them from charging me $89 or $99 for the same level of service.