4 ms·

We have metered electricity, water, sewage, etc. Why shouldn't we pay per byte?

tw04 11y ago
If you're going to support regulating the shit out of internet and capping their profit margins, sure. We'll all be paying about $40/month for gigabit internet, I'm all about it. Of course, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about private companies making up their own caps and their own cost structures so that they can push to the 30%+ profit margins seen in the wireless industry.
Dylan16807 11y ago
It's not the worst idea, as long as the price is connected to the cost. The reason not to is that the production plays a huge factor in those things, and people use similar amounts so folding infrastructure into cost doesn't distort prices very much. With bytes, neither of those are true and pricing gets weird and often bad.
simoncion 11y ago
...because the marginal cost of each byte is effectively zero? ...because the cost of running the network doesn't significantly change whether it's idle, or at full capacity? ...because -unlike electricity, water, and sewage- we have an infinite supply of bytes?
- Aleman360 11y ago
  > ...because the marginal cost of each byte is effectively zero? So is the marginal cost of each electron or H2O molecule. > ...because the cost of running the network doesn't significantly change whether it's idle, or at full capacity? You have to have extra capacity to deal with surges. Plus you probably have a normal distribution of bandwidth among your users, with some serious outliers. Why should they pay the same as someone who uses it less often? > ...because -unlike electricity, water, and sewage- we have an infinite supply of bytes? To start with, transferring data uses electricity, so I don't follow your logic. And there is certainly not infinite bandwidth.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > To start with, transferring data uses electricity, so I don't follow your logic. Given that you totally misunderstood my second statement, I'm not surprised that you don't follow my logic. The difference in cost to run a wired network with a given capacity -whether that network is being utilized at 0% or 100%- is effectively zero. > So is the marginal cost of each electron or H2O molecule. Again, you misunderstood my second statement, so it's not too surprising that you'd say this. You have to find and expend fuel to run electron pumping equipment. The cost of each unit of fuel is non-zero. You have to find and treat H2O. Most power plant fuels, and all H2O is a finite resource. We don't have to find and refine byte caches buried deep within the Earth. Bytes are free. And -again- a network costs the same whether it's pumping 0 bytes, or all of the bytes it can.
  - josho 11y ago
    By your logic we should also have tiered rates. Ie. Data in prime time costs more than off peak. The reality is privates companies want to increase their profit, they figure (and have convinced folks like you) that this is a fair way to increase prices. The reality however is over time it enables price increases for everyone.

tw04 11y ago

If you're going to support regulating the shit out of internet and capping their profit margins, sure. We'll all be paying about $40/month for gigabit internet, I'm all about it. Of course, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about private companies making up their own caps and their own cost structures so that they can push to the 30%+ profit margins seen in the wireless industry.

Dylan16807 11y ago

It's not the worst idea, as long as the price is connected to the cost. The reason not to is that the production plays a huge factor in those things, and people use similar amounts so folding infrastructure into cost doesn't distort prices very much. With bytes, neither of those are true and pricing gets weird and often bad.

simoncion 11y ago

...because the marginal cost of each byte is effectively zero? ...because the cost of running the network doesn't significantly change whether it's idle, or at full capacity? ...because -unlike electricity, water, and sewage- we have an infinite supply of bytes?

Aleman360 11y ago
> ...because the marginal cost of each byte is effectively zero? So is the marginal cost of each electron or H2O molecule. > ...because the cost of running the network doesn't significantly change whether it's idle, or at full capacity? You have to have extra capacity to deal with surges. Plus you probably have a normal distribution of bandwidth among your users, with some serious outliers. Why should they pay the same as someone who uses it less often? > ...because -unlike electricity, water, and sewage- we have an infinite supply of bytes? To start with, transferring data uses electricity, so I don't follow your logic. And there is certainly not infinite bandwidth.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > To start with, transferring data uses electricity, so I don't follow your logic. Given that you totally misunderstood my second statement, I'm not surprised that you don't follow my logic. The difference in cost to run a wired network with a given capacity -whether that network is being utilized at 0% or 100%- is effectively zero. > So is the marginal cost of each electron or H2O molecule. Again, you misunderstood my second statement, so it's not too surprising that you'd say this. You have to find and expend fuel to run electron pumping equipment. The cost of each unit of fuel is non-zero. You have to find and treat H2O. Most power plant fuels, and all H2O is a finite resource. We don't have to find and refine byte caches buried deep within the Earth. Bytes are free. And -again- a network costs the same whether it's pumping 0 bytes, or all of the bytes it can.
- josho 11y ago
  By your logic we should also have tiered rates. Ie. Data in prime time costs more than off peak. The reality is privates companies want to increase their profit, they figure (and have convinced folks like you) that this is a fair way to increase prices. The reality however is over time it enables price increases for everyone.