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

[destrekor]

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.

I think half of the issue with Google laying fiber is that, without Title II, Google was not a telecom and thus had less rights when it came to pole access. Either it cost more, or required more of a fight and pleading for exceptions, or they just flat out couldn't do it. Not quite sure of the fullest details.

 

[BeeBoop]

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.

I'll rephrase it.

The tech is moving fast as in it will be extremely affordable this year, Christmas. There will be sub 500$ 4k televisions for Christmas. In 2016, 4k will be pushed on virtually all TVs. Sure, you can still watch 1080p with a 4k television but who would really want too? All manufacturers and media companies are pushing 4k because it is proprietary hardware and software combo. They believe it will reduce pirating. For example, I can't watch 4k through Chromecast or Apple TV. I can only watch 4k through the television itself, Amazon and Netflix 4k.

 

[clamum]

I don't think I've ever checked my usage. I know it's just a random figure, but $1/month might be a bit high for me compared to what I pay for Internet now:

I do a tiny bit of gaming, almost never torrent, but watch quite a bit of movies and TV shows over the Internet. According to my account on the Comcast site, my Internet (I get TV too) is $64/month.

 

[Grooveriding]

Depends on how much Comcast gets charged per gig.

I don't know if the pricing is universal worldwide, but, if you are paying for a T1,2,3 whatever fiber link - you are paying for that pipe's capacity whether you want to saturate that or not. You don't pay for the amount of data you pull through the link. There is no legitimate cost to that bandwidth. The fiber pipe has a bandwidth limit and you pay dependent on that capacity whether you use it all or just a portion of it.

 

[jpiniero]

I'm sure the ISPs have done what they can to obstruct/annoy Google when Google tries to build out.

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.

Most people do have a second choice in the phone company, so it's not like they have no competition.

 

[Freejack2]

Metered internet would kill some things for sure.
Steam may go bye bye because large games would no longer be worth it. At $1/gb a 25gb game would cost the price of the game + $25 for the data use. Cheaper to have it shipped or go pick it up at a local store.
Streaming services such as Netflix will vanish.
Youtube will see a massive loss in views.
Businesses will no longer offer complimentary internet, or if they do it'll be bandwith limited like 1gb/customer.

Also if they do metering it's going to either be a minimum cost just for the service liike $25 + $1/gb used, or it'll be something such as $50 a month with 30gb of data and $2 a gb for overages.

 

[darkswordsman17]

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.

And I'm saying if it does happen then there will be repercussions, especially if they aim low (unless they're offering it for very near the actual cost, which 1GB of bandwidth is supposed to cost less than ten cents, they'll come under fire big time over metered billing or tiers like that). The FCC won't even have to do much as if they even hint at that model and it's more of a screwjob than it is already, then there will be sweeping push for municipal networks, and people will try to completely cut the major ISPs out of it entirely. In fact, if they do try to move to that, I would expect the FCC response to be local loop unbundling which could effectively mean the cities could then reclaim the networks that the telecoms put in place (were paid for by the city, either directly, through subsidies, through tax breaks, and/or through exclusive operator deals).

That's why the ISPs talk and actions have been bullshit, they've been trying to mislead people to believe that they the telecoms built the networks, when the people paid for them (and then some).

The telecoms are lucky the FCC hasn't been more open about exposing just how bullshit their deals and what they've been doing actually is. The FCC has access to specifics but they don't release that publicly. However if they keep up what they've been doing, I expect the FCC to start doing that. They'll have a lot of explaining to do then. Of course there will be plenty of people inside the FCC that will have explaining to do as well, but if the ISPs keep pushing back, there's going to be a lot of dirty laundry aired out, and while the telecoms seemingly don't care about what people think of them, I think we're seeing that people are pushing for change, and that's not going to end well for the telecoms.

 

[Carson Dyle]

And I'm saying if it does happen then there will be repercussions, especially if they aim low (unless they're offering it for very near the actual cost, which 1GB of bandwidth is supposed to cost less than ten cents, they'll come under fire big time over metered billing or tiers like that). The FCC won't even have to do much as if they even hint at that model and it's more of a screwjob than it is already, then there will be sweeping push for municipal networks, and people will try to completely cut the major ISPs out of it entirely. In fact, if they do try to move to that, I would expect the FCC response to be local loop unbundling which could effectively mean the cities could then reclaim the networks that the telecoms put in place (were paid for by the city, either directly, through subsidies, through tax breaks, and/or through exclusive operator deals).

That's why the ISPs talk and actions have been bullshit, they've been trying to mislead people to believe that they the telecoms built the networks, when the people paid for them (and then some).

The telecoms are lucky the FCC hasn't been more open about exposing just how bullshit their deals and what they've been doing actually is. The FCC has access to specifics but they don't release that publicly. However if they keep up what they've been doing, I expect the FCC to start doing that. They'll have a lot of explaining to do then. Of course there will be plenty of people inside the FCC that will have explaining to do as well, but if the ISPs keep pushing back, there's going to be a lot of dirty laundry aired out, and while the telecoms seemingly don't care about what people think of them, I think we're seeing that people are pushing for change, and that's not going to end well for the telecoms.

I just don't see the FCC objecting to either metered or tiered billing. That's certainly not what their net neutrality push was all about. They don't give a **** whether Comcast charges you $80 or charges you $160 for the exact same level of service. You're living in a dream world if you think the FCC is trying to oversee consumer pricing. The best they can do is control some factors, such as peering, that ultimately have an effect on competition.

 

[Markbnj]

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.

So I have one predicted $77 bill, and one predicted $100 bill, both of which are less than what I pay now. I don't actually use that much, and I also don't actually want to pay by the gig. I just felt like the OP's concern was silly so why not run with it.

 

[destrekor]

So I have one predicted $77 bill, and one predicted $100 bill, both of which are less than what I pay now. I don't actually use that much, and I also don't actually want to pay by the gig. I just felt like the OP's concern was silly so why not run with it.

Well your thought is exactly what they could very well charge, so that's why I want to squash that idea right away.

Right now, if you have a, say, 200GB cap on your home broadband, and you go over, you may pay $10 for 50GB, even if you only used 2GB over. That is what my hometown ISP charges IIRC.

Now, if that was the flat rate, perhaps $10 for every 50GB block might not be too bad. Also, I might just be fine with a $0.20/GB rate. A 300GB month would be $60 before other fees, which they would tack on highly.

Frankly, I actually might prefer it to be less. As the modern civilization evolves with regards to media consumption, our data use will only rise. Game delivery alone is causing massive data consumption, and the rise of streaming services are causing data use to rise exponentially. I don't think we are too far from seeing an average "connected" individual using 500GB a month, especially if they are cord-cutters. That would easily mean those who do more, including heavy gaming (digital delivery) and heavy streaming/"other" media downloading, they could easily broach 750GB/month.

2 hours of 4K streaming every day, if it is indeed 7GB/hour as someone stated earlier in this thread, is 420GB right off the bat. That isn't including any other media and general downloads, be it application updates, high-quality music streaming or downloads (including, hopefully, an increased presence of lossless or similar "audiophile" grade audio), and of course games. When games are reaching 30-50GB downloads, that will start pushing that usage rate even higher.

A 750GB month would cost $150. I'm assuming that would also then mean there are streaming service subscriptions, and if you have even basic cable on top of that, then ouch, that bill will rise.

 

[KeithP]

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

They already know how they are going to do it or Wheeler wouldn't have voted for it. The figuring was done awhile ago.

-KeithP

 

[Rakehellion]

So it'll be like the original AOL.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Would suck, but I see it happen, sadly.

You pay a delivery fee based on the package you're on, like $75, plus other fees like debt retirement fee, HST, and whatever else is on a hydro bill these days, then 90 cents a gig. There would also be time of use billing so during peak it would be like 1.70 a gig. If you go past a total then it's 50 cents extra per gig.

It's retarded though that bandwidth usage even has a cost associated with it. The way it should work is when an ISP peers with a tier 1 provider, they should have to pay a flat rate based on the size of the pipe. This should then apply to customers too. Whether you're using it at 100% or at 10% does not actually cost any more to run the equipment.

If I upgrade my house to 10gigabit, I will have to pay once for that equipment and perhaps pay a bit more in electricity as it might use more power, but other than that, whether it's idle all day, or I'm streaming stuff to saturate it, it does not actually cost me more to run it. Why can't the internet work the same way?

 

[88keys]

I'll rephrase it.

The tech is moving fast as in it will be extremely affordable this year, Christmas. There will be sub 500$ 4k televisions for Christmas. In 2016, 4k will be pushed on virtually all TVs. Sure, you can still watch 1080p with a 4k television but who would really want too? All manufacturers and media companies are pushing 4k because it is proprietary hardware and software combo. They believe it will reduce pirating. For example, I can't watch 4k through Chromecast or Apple TV. I can only watch 4k through the television itself, Amazon and Netflix 4k.

The real question is how long before 4K content becomes widely available.

If what you're saying is accurate, then I'd say that content would become widely available by around 2020 just based on how long it took for HD content to come around. Even when 4k TVs become more affordable, it doesn't mean that they are a viable option when you can get a better quality HDTV for the same price.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Metered internet would kill some things for sure.
Steam may go bye bye because large games would no longer be worth it. At $1/gb a 25gb game would cost the price of the game + $25 for the data use. Cheaper to have it shipped or go pick it up at a local store.

Not that this is likely to be necessary, but could something ever develop where a local store that Steam partners with (whether that's a WalMart, a GameStop, Best Buy or whoever) maintains a database of Steam games and you can go there and download to a flash drive and then bring back to your PC to store on HDD/SSD?

 

[WackyDan]

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

After taxes it would be $29!

 

[WackyDan]

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.

Mine won't be 4k and I like it that way.

 

[SparkyJJO]

So it'll be like the original AOL.

Nah, AOL didn't charge you buy data usage, they charged you by how long your modem was connected to their system. Slower speed today? Awww too bad, you're gonna be connected for longer $CHING CHING$

 

[Aikouka]

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.

The ruling does give the FCC the right to step in when they consider things such as data caps unfair to the consumer. Comcast loves to state that it's "not a cap", but that's just a corporate game of po-tay-toh, po-tah-toh.

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/

...and it's absolutely inane. It costs me $58 for my 50/10 Internet connection, which includes 300GB and all the other aspects of my service. To get another 300GB, it would cost me $60. Yes, it costs more to buy an additional 300GB than it does for the ENTIRE SERVICE. It's a goddamn penalty fee for going over their 300GB cap.

Steam may go bye bye because large games would no longer be worth it. At $1/gb a 25gb game would cost the price of the game + $25 for the data use. Cheaper to have it shipped or go pick it up at a local store.

I actually installed a game on Steam using the 4 DVDs a few months ago just to save myself from downloading ~25GB. I haven't installed a game from disc in years before that.

So I have one predicted $77 bill, and one predicted $100 bill, both of which are less than what I pay now. I don't actually use that much, and I also don't actually want to pay by the gig. I just felt like the OP's concern was silly so why not run with it.

I'm pretty sure you said in another thread that you're on Comcast, so unless you've got a 100Mbps+ tier, how in the world are you paying more than $100 for the Internet. Keep in mind... I'm not talking about your total bill as that includes all the extra stuff (Cable TV, VOIP, taxes, fees, etc.) that get piled on top of the $1/GB.

 

[Blanky]

I do 300-400 GB/month, so $1 won't work. The good news is broadband providers make huge margins so the prices will not need to be that guy.

I supported net neutrality and think the notion of charging by use is reasonable--as long as the rates are. $1/gb, for example, would not be reasonable.

 

[Strk]

Because caps don't already exist? If I remember correctly, Comcast is already testing something similar in some markets where they charge you extra for going over your cap.

I just can't figure out how people don't see that ISPs are already doing what anti-net neutrality people keep claiming they will do as a result of the recent decision.

 

[Markbnj]

I'm pretty sure you said in another thread that you're on Comcast, so unless you've got a 100Mbps+ tier, how in the world are you paying more than $100 for the Internet. Keep in mind... I'm not talking about your total bill as that includes all the extra stuff (Cable TV, VOIP, taxes, fees, etc.) that get piled on top of the $1/GB.

I don't know. What are other people in our part of NJ (western Morris County) paying? We cut the cord last year, we have no video services from them, and no VOIP. I have standard tier 25/5 service.

[FONT=&quot]Comcast Account Number: ****************
Payment Date: 2/27/2015
Payment Amount: $155.30
[/FONT]

 

[Zodiark1593]

Goddamn data caps just need to go away altogether, both mobile and home. If mobile internet abuse is really a concern, an isp could gradually lower speed over a sustained download, then bring it back up after something like 10 minutes of light use.

 

[Carson Dyle]

I don't know. What are other people in our part of NJ (western Morris County) paying? We cut the cord last year, we have no video services from them, and no VOIP. I have standard tier 25/5 service.

Comcast Account Number: ****************
Payment Date: 2/27/2015
Payment Amount: $155.30

Are you saying you pay $155 per month for only 25/5 Comcast Internet service, with no TV?

 

[Engineer]

Are you saying you pay $155 per month for only 25/5 Comcast Internet service, with no TV?

If so, that's crazy (unless it's a business guaranteed speed/reliability account).

My 15/1 was $57 until I called and complained and now it's $35 for the next year.

Edit: I'm on TWC, not Comcast (which might be Comcast if the TWC/Comcast merger were to go through).