On Jan 21, 2008 2:05 AM, Stroller <<a href="mailto:linux.luser@myrealbox.com">linux.luser@myrealbox.com</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I never quite understand the rational objection to this. Sure, as a<br>consumer of internet services I prefer an all-you-can-eat buffet, too<br>- and I subscribe to services that support that.<br>...<br>Per-usage internet is probably too expensive at present - otherwise I
<br>might consider switching myself - but if a competitive market follows<br>this course then prices should become reasonable. And there's really<br>no reason why a little old lady - who only uses the internet for her
<br>email - should subsidise the high bandwidth consumption of someone<br>downloading gigs per day.<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><div><br>The main objection I have as a user of a capped service (the only option in this country for full speed DSL) is that the over-limit charges have typically been well out of proportion to the base charge.
E.g. $60 per month for 10GB and then $0.02 per MEGABYTE over the 10GB. If they can give you 10GB per $60, what's the justification for charging $80 for 11GB, $100 for 12GB and so on? They do this to force people onto higher cap plans - if you're likely to exceed your limit even slightly you might as well go for a more expensive plan in the first place (
e.g. the $80 plan gives you 15GB per month).<br><br>I wouldn't object to usage based charging if it wasn't so obviously just a ploy to increase profits. Though it might be fairer in the US where there is slightly more competition. Here there is an infrastructure monopoly which has allowed the monopolist to get away with charging their competitors more for wholesale bandwidth than they charge their own retail customers.
<br><br>Cheers,<br>Steve<br><br></div></div>