Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X
What is the one thing we all of us have in common in here? We all use a combination of gas,electric and water.It has been compulsory to have meters for gas & electric for decades,but not for water which is largly voluntary.I have a water meter as I live on my own and this reduces my bill by 25% over the year as opposed to paying s fixed fee.I have all three meters to help me monitor my costs and help me plan my bills for around 12 months ahead on a limited budget.It works for me and I am happy to set my budget accordingly.
In recent editions of PC Advisor,I often read of 'unlimited' downloads promoted by ISPs.Sadly for some,'unlimited' can turn into major restrictions with some ISPs putting a stranglehold on users who use their computers excessively. In effect,'unlimited' appears to not be'unlimited' at all.
My question for debate is this. If we have as standard a combination of gas,electric and water meters in our homes,why can our ISPs not install an on-line meter on our screens for all of us to see what we use whether we have an 'unlimited' or 'capped' package?
Would not the benefit be that,like gas,water and electricity,we could see what we're using and help us to monitor our own usage of our particular bandwith to avoid restrictions and strangleholds?
The answer from my point of view is yes,I would like a meter to tell me what I'm using even though my package is 'unlimited'.I believe this is a responsible way.
I am curious as to what you all think please.
Big L 266
DIY is the answer download the Tautology meter click here
There are many bandwidth monitoring apps available to download,and one of my previous ISP's offered a portal where I could check my monthly usage.
I think Lineone, then Tiscali offered a 'meter service', not sure if TalkTalk do.
We only need meters so that the utilities know how much to charge us.
ISPs simply charge a flat rate.
If utility companies wanted to do that we wouldn't need meters for them either.
There is a world of difference between distribution of
Water - needs an infrastructure, plus a supply of the material passing through it.
Gas - the same
Electricity - the same (though it's not "material, it has to be generated, and is "consumed"
Data - only needs an infrastructure - data isn't "consumed" (ie used up) in the sense that water, gas and electricity are. And when information is generated, it can be by another user (eg, emails etc) or by an organisation which can provide it once and it can be used over and over again. The generators can, and sometimes do, charge for the "generation" of the data.
PS Most utilities also work on the basis of a "flat rate" usually called a standing charge, for connection to the infrastructure, plus a variable charge based on the amount of "stuff" that is consumed.
Whereas with the utilities I have a good idea of consumption and cost, I have absolutely no idea how much data is downloaded to produce a given image on the PC.
I wouldn't have an objection in principle provided the download was preceded by the cost in bytes so I had control over whether to download or not.
It might promote a more efficient way of sending data, increasing the network capacity for all.
If it would lower my contention ratio, so that I can get more than half a meg in the evening I'm all for it!
unlike gas, electricity & water, it's very easy for someone to use another's bandwidth - essentially stealing the service after it's passed through the meter...
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.