With reference to an article in the news, what do you guys(not gender spec.) think of the idea of 'freeing up' bandwidth by charging by the amount of data downloaded as apposed to a flat rate. The argument 'for' seems to be that, why should someone who only sends emails and browses pay the same as a user who downloads films (for e.g) all day everyday?
Personally I like the idea of a flat rate. I appreciate the fact that some days I may download software/stream videos and surf for hours and some days I may only browse for a matter of minutes, but at least I know what the bill will be. Or, should it be like electricity/gas and in some cases water in that you should pay for what you use. Assuming that 'bandwith' is a quantifiable product that can in fact be measured (like water)
Yes but it's hardly a fair system, It's like road tax why they do not put it on petrol, It's because they would not be able to run the country if it was not for the double fuel tax and road tax. A Sunday driver as to pay the same amount of road tax as some one running round all day like reps
will prove to be the preferred method of operation for most ISPs. If you're running a service business of any variety it's comforting to have a predictable revenue stream, rather than one which fluctuates according to the whim of your customers.
From the consumers'point of view it's a good idea for much the same reason - it's a predictable 'pay it and forget it' item.
I fail to see how metered charging would 'free up' bandwidth anyway. Water companies have not found that people with meters use less water than those on a flat rate, and I think the same would apply to Internet use.
It seems that the customer AND the ISP both prefer a fixed rate so it seems a strange issue for the article, unless they were 'testing the water'. If bandwith does become a problem then the only answer seems to be to raise the price of the monthly fee.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.