Fredkc
3rd December 2010, 16:12
WASHINGTON – The top U.S. telecommunications regulator on Wednesday endorsed the idea that broadband providers could charge extra for providing heavy Internet users with lots of online video or data-heavy services such as videogames.
Mr. Genachowski's support for pay-as-you-go pricing represents a victory for cable and telecommunications companies because it clarified whether broadband providers had the power to charge by what users consumed.
"We were appreciative of them clarifying it," said AT&T senior vice president Robert W. Quinn Jr.
But communications providers may still get pushback from consumers, Silicon Valley and lawmakers on pay-as-you-pricing depending on how network operators implement such plans. Last April, Time Warner Cable shelved its tests of usage-based pricing after a consumer outcry and pressure from some lawmakers.
Some consumers complained the caps on data usage were too low and the pricing tiers were too expensive. In one trial, Time Warner Cable offered plans with five gigabytes of monthly data for $30 and 40 gigabytes for $55. Exceeding those caps cost $1 for each gigabyte.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/02/fcc-backs-usage-based-broadband-pricing
________________________________
You know, they came within a hair's breath of doing this once before, many moons ago.
This was roughly 1990, so it was mostly the stage coach days of the Internet. Most people were on dial-up.
What the TelCo's wanted was the ability to charge for Internet based upon "resource usage" instead of merely time. What did that mean? Well it meant that:
* If you read a news story on the BBC's site, you ISP would be billed for the "phone call", or connection to England.
* Read some Aussie's blog post, and your ISP paid for the connection to Australia.
God knows what the bill would have been had you clicked on a link to the BBC story, on said Aussie's blog!
I think the bill was mostly about killing off small-time ISP's (a huge priority for TelCo's back then), but the costs would have eventually been passed down to users by those ISP's who had survived.
The bill made it to the house floor, and died there on a vote. Looks like this time, TelCo's are a bit smarter, and intend to use the "good government" they paid for.
Mr. Genachowski's support for pay-as-you-go pricing represents a victory for cable and telecommunications companies because it clarified whether broadband providers had the power to charge by what users consumed.
"We were appreciative of them clarifying it," said AT&T senior vice president Robert W. Quinn Jr.
But communications providers may still get pushback from consumers, Silicon Valley and lawmakers on pay-as-you-pricing depending on how network operators implement such plans. Last April, Time Warner Cable shelved its tests of usage-based pricing after a consumer outcry and pressure from some lawmakers.
Some consumers complained the caps on data usage were too low and the pricing tiers were too expensive. In one trial, Time Warner Cable offered plans with five gigabytes of monthly data for $30 and 40 gigabytes for $55. Exceeding those caps cost $1 for each gigabyte.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/02/fcc-backs-usage-based-broadband-pricing
________________________________
You know, they came within a hair's breath of doing this once before, many moons ago.
This was roughly 1990, so it was mostly the stage coach days of the Internet. Most people were on dial-up.
What the TelCo's wanted was the ability to charge for Internet based upon "resource usage" instead of merely time. What did that mean? Well it meant that:
* If you read a news story on the BBC's site, you ISP would be billed for the "phone call", or connection to England.
* Read some Aussie's blog post, and your ISP paid for the connection to Australia.
God knows what the bill would have been had you clicked on a link to the BBC story, on said Aussie's blog!
I think the bill was mostly about killing off small-time ISP's (a huge priority for TelCo's back then), but the costs would have eventually been passed down to users by those ISP's who had survived.
The bill made it to the house floor, and died there on a vote. Looks like this time, TelCo's are a bit smarter, and intend to use the "good government" they paid for.