http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/366004/british-isps-could-charge-per-device?DCMP=NLC-Newsletters
I was just reading through this and noticed the comment about increased loads for ISPs due to ipad use. How exactly has this increased a load for the ISP? Surely if you have a wi-fi connection, then you're already paying for it, and you'll either be using your PC or that, but not both at the same time? Yes you'll have the added app updates that you didn't before, but at a few mb a time, I'm somewhat baffled by this comment. You'll be using the internet, which you would on a PC/netbook/laptop, and possibly have even less bandwidth use if you use only that. If they're saying more people are getting broadband connections just to use their ipad, then that's increased revenue for the ISP surely?
Have I missed something, or are they just angling to charge customers more on a flimsy pretence?
Sounds like a PR campaign to me, Niall, of the sort Governments run. Make us think that something really bad is coming, then when the real bullet arrives, we all bit it gratefully. Charging per device is plainly ridiculous, charging by traffic type is more realistic, if undesirable.
The only thing I can think of is that its another device which is likely to be used concurrently with the existing devices. Take a typical family with 2 kids. Its possible they've got a pc which would have always been in use by one of the kids. Now with the iPad it enables the other kid to play on the web.
As for the charging, we get charged per line. If a user connects 50 devices they are still only going to use the same amount as one device (assuming it is constantly going). At the end of the day, this is just ISPs trying to find an alternative to supply the network they always should have been.
Personally I have no problem with traffic charges, as long as it's in the sort of frame we see now. You have a limit and if you pass it, you pay more. I honestly can't see how they could justify anything to say using an ipad or iphone on your broadband connection would cost you more/less than using your PC. I'm absolutely baffled by that way of thinking. Granted I don't know how ipad traffic is different to that of a PC, but I wouldn't have thought it's different at all; how can it be?
That article doesn't really detail the full horror of what's being proposed. It's not just about charging end users differing rates for the type of packets received, it's also about charging content providers more to serve their content or even blocking content to consumers. As an example the BBC could pay to get their iPlayer traffic prioritised on the network and failure to do so would see their content squashed or even potentially blocked by ISPs to end users.
We seem to live in a world where legalised blackmail and extortion is common place and this proposal is a prime example of it. Anyone that cares about net neutrality and ultimately the Internet itself should be up in arms about this. In actual fact this only serves to highlight that as far as the Internet infrastructure is concerned, ours is rotten to the core and not fit for purpose. We will all end up paying more for a third rate service AND have restrictions placed on the type of content received.
Then if that arguement is carried to the extreme we should be paying seperatly for eac tv set in a house and also the lenght of time it is on and being watched. I think the problem is that too many companies, politicians and other media are equating telvison useage with broadband useage, thye are two seperate systems and work on differing principles and useage.
Quote from: Niall on Mar 20, 2011, 14:27:11
Personally I have no problem with traffic charges, as long as it's in the sort of frame we see now. You have a limit and if you pass it, you pay more. I honestly can't see how they could justify anything to say using an ipad or iphone on your broadband connection would cost you more/less than using your PC. I'm absolutely baffled by that way of thinking. Granted I don't know how ipad traffic is different to that of a PC, but I wouldn't have thought it's different at all; how can it be?
Exactly that :thumb:
Looks like a sales pitch for F5 kit to me.
He does have a point regarding the mobile networks though, as smartphones are constantly polling for new e-mail, facebook updates etc they are constantly establishing and dropping sessions which creates signalling traffic in addition to the data being carried (you cannot reserve dedicated bandwidth on a mobile network as the capacity of the local masts would quickly be filled up), the amount of signalling traffic generated in areas like London because of the iPhone let operators to have to upgrade capacity.
great now they want us to pay them money so they can traffic shape us? they should be getting apple and content providers to pay
But that's exactly what's being proposed, content providers pay more or get shut out, an end to net neutrality. ISPs with sensible use policies like IDNet already provide the answer to any net capacity issues, you have complete neutrality, freedom of choice and effectively pay for the packets you use. Charging content providers is the start of a very slippery slope and one which will require them to recover costs from the end user.
As a content provider I supply content free to the Internet. I pay for the domains, the servers and for the bandwidth consumed. I also donate a huge amount of time to it without reimbursement. The only income I get is a meagre amount via affiliate links. If an ISP wanted payment to carry my content across their network I'd have to recover those costs from end users. Imagine what it would be like if every content provider required you to take out a subscription to view their content.
IDNetters will be charging £5pm. ;)
Would probably be time to give up on home Internet connections.
Quote from: Rik on Mar 26, 2011, 15:52:42
IDNetters will be charging £5pm. ;)
Bargain!
I thought so. ;D
Bye bye IDNetters ;D
:bye: ;D
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Mar 26, 2011, 14:01:49
But that's exactly what's being proposed, content providers pay more or get shut out, an end to net neutrality. ISPs with sensible use policies like IDNet already provide the answer to any net capacity issues, you have complete neutrality, freedom of choice and effectively pay for the packets you use. Charging content providers is the start of a very slippery slope and one which will require them to recover costs from the end user.
As a content provider I supply content free to the Internet. I pay for the domains, the servers and for the bandwidth consumed. I also donate a huge amount of time to it without reimbursement. The only income I get is a meagre amount via affiliate links. If an ISP wanted payment to carry my content across their network I'd have to recover those costs from end users. Imagine what it would be like if every content provider required you to take out a subscription to view their content.
this is a good thing the internet would become so costly to use that people will stop using it and go to there local shops instead of wasting time paying bt for substandard internet also people can find alternative sources of entertainment to the internet like murder/rape vandalism drugs the way this country is going i wouldn't be suppressed if we have to pay to use the pavements in a few years
I guess we already do through Council Tax.
thats a ripoff just like the tv licence but thats what you get for living in a non democratic country were the politicians can do what they like not what they promised to do
If only election manifestos were binding. :sigh:
Quote from: sparkler on Mar 26, 2011, 18:19:59
thats a ripoff just like the tv licence
Would you care to explain?
For around £145 you get access to two full BBC channels plus all of the radio channels and BBC subsidies to Ch4 and Ch5.
ITV, Ch4 and Ch5 are not free but paid for by advertising - most of which is ignored. Consumers pay for that advertising - and again have no real choice. The estimated cost per household for the non-BBC is around £500 per annum. Or three times the cost of the BBC.
Quote from: Polchraine on Mar 28, 2011, 12:57:11
For around £145 you get access to two full BBC channels plus all of the radio channels and BBC subsidies to Ch4 and Ch5.
ITV, Ch4 and Ch5 are not free but paid for by advertising - most of which is ignored. Consumers pay for that advertising - and again have no real choice. The estimated cost per household for the non-BBC is around £500 per annum. Or three times the cost of the BBC.
I object to the TV license on two grounds.
Firstly, most of it is spent on the sort of rubbish other channels quite happily churn out, distorting the market and generating ever increasing piles of steaming such and such like Strictly Come Ice Cooking and The Pop X Idol Factor. I can see no case whatsoever to spend public money on this drivel.
Secondly, and more fundamentally, I object to the TV tax on the basis that people can evade - sorry,
avoid - paying it by not having a telly. If it really is in the public interest, it should be funded from general taxation - like schools and hospitals. Funding it through its own tax suggests it has no net benefit to society as a whole, and as such has no place being publicly funded in the first place.
As I understand it the TV License is for being able to receive, watch and or record live TV broadcasts from any source such as Sky/Freesat, ITV etc. on any device capable of receiving live broadcasts, more details here (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology-top8/), it is incidental that the License fee goes to the funding of the BBC.
No doubt knowing our Politicians even if they stopped using it to fund the BBC we would still be expected to pay it, it's like the Vehicle Excise Duty which would be fairer to my mind if it was scrapped and included in the cost of fuel.
I thought that, at one point, a Govt decided to scrap VED, Ray, and replace it with increased fuel duty. The started raising the duty, but forgot to abandon the VED. :shake:
Quote from: Rik on Mar 28, 2011, 16:41:02
I thought that, at one point, a Govt decided to scrap VED, Ray, and replace it with increased fuel duty. The started raising the duty, but forgot to abandon the VED. :shake:
Yes, that sounds about right, Rik, :shake:
I can't remember when it was, but it's stuck in my mind, Ray.
Neither can I, Rik, but I certainly remember it being talked about, I suspect by the Labour Party. :-\
I believe that it was Mr. Darling.
As recent as that? I thought it was probably back in the 70s or 80s.
It may well be, but I think Darling brought it up again.
This is what I was thinking of http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/2207108/Alistair-Darling-forced-into-retreat-over-car-tax-increases.html
I remember that one, Glenn, but at the back of my mind I have a feeling that an earlier Chancellor started to replace VED with duty on fuel, but the latter happened whilst the former did not. Sadly, my memory is too vague for Google to help.
In 2020 we will be charged per Web Browser. Each share of Web browsers percentage in the market relates to an increase in charges. As FireFox has 40% share, it gets charged 40% more. Well, they are using 40% more bandwidth than the only just released called "Jan2020Explorer" web browser that has 1% share.
By 2022 we are getting charge per button. Each button on a device has been shown to correlate to the amount of traffic used on the device. This times the sum of the pie of the tangent of the screen aspect ratio over the size in rhino feet, gives the discount reduction rate charged in rebate to the customer.
In 2030 BT decide what you pay. You have no need to worry about what that is. To improve the "customer service" [As regulated and reclassified in the BToxford Dictionary to be "subject to change"] they no longer tell you what your bill is. Or what the charges are for our services. All BT products are now "up to infinite" in all areas. This includes speed, bandwidth, content, size, width, flavour, colour, DPI, shoe size and cost.
Oh, could they charge you on the bandwidth you use, like some sort of "meter"? But that would give customers facts, and they would be able to see through the cons!
Quote from: Polchraine on Mar 28, 2011, 12:57:11
Would you care to explain?
For around £145 you get access to two full BBC channels plus all of the radio channels and BBC subsidies to Ch4 and Ch5.
ITV, Ch4 and Ch5 are not free but paid for by advertising - most of which is ignored. Consumers pay for that advertising - and again have no real choice. The estimated cost per household for the non-BBC is around £500 per annum. Or three times the cost of the BBC.
I think the point is monopoly, the bbc should scramble their broadcasts and if you want to watch, subscribe, it's all about choice and we don't have any. :thumb:
And the fact that they (bbc) are political puppets. :whistle:
But it's not like the water company where they have not fitted a meter yet. The service by definition is metered. So why bother charging someone extra because they have a bath fitted instead of a shower? When you can charge them for the water used. As someone who has 4 showers a day will use more water than someone who baths once a week.
IE if you charge me for 5 devices when I only use 1 each day, and someone has 1 pc and uses it 4 times over what I do, I'm gonna get mad. :mad:
Some family friends in the Republic of Ireland have their own well so don't have to pay a penny for water.
Clava has their own well, Mitch, wonderfully soft water. :)
Hmmm. I always saw it as a "rent" or "tax". As some companies seem to suggest they own the catchment area you live in. So if it falls from the sky, it belongs to them. :o
Microsoft wants to charge us for internet use as well
http://www.itworld.com/software/98522/microsofts-charney-suggests-net-tax-clean-computers
I hope Linux is tax except, cos that's where I'll be heading!
Oh, I'm also working as a couch potato, I think everyone else should be taxed to my benefit. What? It works for all the other businesses! (TV/Movie/music publishers, and now microsoft!?)
I'm not paying a net tax to MS, people just need to be better educated and those that just want to surf the net should use tablets.
I keep saying it, but I think people should be required to take a basic proficiency test before being allowed to access the net, and be required to demonstrate that their machine is adequately protected.
Three would fail, they have AV, but no mal/spyware protection
It could prove interesting for many companies, couldn't it. :)
Quote from: Glenn on Mar 31, 2011, 17:15:33
Three would fail, they have AV, but no mal/spyware protection
It's practically the same thing these days.
PS, "interesting" is not the word. >:(
:music: what kind of fuel am I ,who never went above :music:
;D :music: Little old gas guzzler me :music:
:clever: :hehe:
Quote from: Glenn on Mar 31, 2011, 17:15:33
Three would fail, they have AV, but no mal/spyware protection
Odd for a company that considers itself a technical pioneer as it launched the first 3G network in the UK.