3 ms·

I understand that there's more to the Comcast /Netflix dispute, but soon or later the "dumb pipes" are going to want a cut, especially for heavy usage. Until t

I understand that there's more to the Comcast /Netflix dispute, but soon or later the "dumb pipes" are going to want a cut, especially for heavy usage. Until that's solved (lobbyists are rubbing their hands!) speed etc are irrelevant. Who cares that you can download at 50mb/s when the limit is reached after a few minutes /hours of full usage?

philwelch 15y ago
It occurs to me that as we move towards "dumb pipes", they should be treated more or less as a public utility--if even a metered one--just like actual water and sewer pipes.
- twoodfin 15y ago
  But you don't need or want a water pipe that delivers 10x as much water every two or three years. Assuming you want bandwidth to follow that curve, someone needs the incentive to pay for it.
  - bbrtyth 15y ago
    Those companies are already paid tons by the government to improve their pipes and we are still lagging behind Europe, Japan, and Korea in terms of bandwidth.
- pbreit 15y ago
  Isn't this a sign of moving _away_ from dumb pipes?
- loverobots 15y ago
  Metered it is right now (see caps) but if you want 24/7 ESPN and HBO and I just want to email and access CNN.com a few times a day why should I pay for you? The "internet" has changed, it was pages and images, now it's videos and with Xbox, Hulu and Netflix it's also cable. The net providers have a point, it costs a fortune to lay, expand and maintain the pipes as demand increases. Not sure how it's solved, but Netflix and others have to shell a few bucks, the money they are saving by not mailing DVDs might come in handy
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Caps is not exactly "metered"; that'd be more like pay-what-you-use, as in $x per GB. Making Netflix et all paying is great for raising barriers to entry and reducing competition.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    I would prefer meters to caps. Caps say if you use more than x gallons of water we shut off your tap, but pay us $100/mo regardless. Meters say, hey, use all the water you want, but you're paying for it.

philwelch 15y ago

It occurs to me that as we move towards "dumb pipes", they should be treated more or less as a public utility--if even a metered one--just like actual water and sewer pipes.

twoodfin 15y ago
But you don't need or want a water pipe that delivers 10x as much water every two or three years. Assuming you want bandwidth to follow that curve, someone needs the incentive to pay for it.
- bbrtyth 15y ago
  Those companies are already paid tons by the government to improve their pipes and we are still lagging behind Europe, Japan, and Korea in terms of bandwidth.
pbreit 15y ago
Isn't this a sign of moving _away_ from dumb pipes?
loverobots 15y ago
Metered it is right now (see caps) but if you want 24/7 ESPN and HBO and I just want to email and access CNN.com a few times a day why should I pay for you? The "internet" has changed, it was pages and images, now it's videos and with Xbox, Hulu and Netflix it's also cable. The net providers have a point, it costs a fortune to lay, expand and maintain the pipes as demand increases. Not sure how it's solved, but Netflix and others have to shell a few bucks, the money they are saving by not mailing DVDs might come in handy
- icebraining 14y ago
  Caps is not exactly "metered"; that'd be more like pay-what-you-use, as in $x per GB. Making Netflix et all paying is great for raising barriers to entry and reducing competition.
- philwelch 14y ago
  I would prefer meters to caps. Caps say if you use more than x gallons of water we shut off your tap, but pay us $100/mo regardless. Meters say, hey, use all the water you want, but you're paying for it.