Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Government The Internet Your Rights Online

FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans 414

An anonymous reader writes "As details emerge about the Federal Communications Commission's controversial proposal for regulating Internet providers, a provision that would allow companies to bill customers for how much they surf the Web is drawing special scrutiny. Analysts say pay-as-you-go Internet access could put the brakes on the burgeoning online video industry, handing a victory to cable and satellite TV providers. Public interest groups say that trend will lead to a widening gap in Internet use in which the wealthiest would have the greatest access."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans

Comments Filter:
  • Got what ya wanted (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dazedNconfuzed ( 154242 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @05:30PM (#34493150)

    Here ya go, net-neutrality proponents: a per-byte charge. Did you really expect otherwise?

  • Re:Ad Blocking (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lincolnshire Poacher ( 1205798 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @05:44PM (#34493400)

    > my hosts file is gonna get big fast, adblock
    > and javascript blocking will become required
    > addons for all my web browsers.

    That is a very accurate assessment. My ISP sells throughput in "units", dimensioned in GB. The cardinality of a "unit" varies by time of day and week, so that usage is shaped to conform to the ISP's costs ( they make it very easy to monitor and estimate usage ).

    Although we don't have much chance of consuming a 125 GB "off-peak unit", an 8GB "peak unit" is much easier to burn-through and Privoxy is therefore laden with rules. There's no point disabling the proxy only for off-peak hours..

    In fact my partner will summon me if she sees any form of online ad; since its appearance is so unexpected she wonders if "something has gone wrong".

  • Re:A la carte cables (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @06:20PM (#34493976)

    Sensible answer: Since the reciever doesn't send a request for a specific channel, and can record one channel when you watch another, you must logically be getting every channel (including those you can't watch because they're scrambled).

    The cable companies also figured that out and they don't like it. No sir, not one bit. That's why they are rolling out SDV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_video [wikipedia.org]. When that finishes, every time you want to watch a channel you will have to ask them for it and then wait for it to be put on the feed to you.

    If you thought channel-change delays were annoyingly slow as part of the change from analog to digital, wait until you're living with SDV. No more Al Bundy-speed channel changing for you.

  • by robot256 ( 1635039 ) on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @08:14PM (#34495400)

    The problem is what will happen in monopoly broadband markets. If there is no competition, they can still jack up the per MB rates so they get the same amount of revenue, or even higher until the network congestion is reduced because it costs so much to use. There is no infrastructure improvement incentive there, and no market forces to lower the price.

    Maybe the FCC should limit the use of per-MB pricing to areas where there is actual competition and to no-cancellation-fee service. This would include most mobile services but exclude fixed installations in places where per-MB pricing would do more harm than good. It might even give an incentive for companies and governments to revoke some monopolies.

Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position. -- Christopher Marlowe