I don't mind paying for a bigger pipe but I do object strenuously to having to pay for the contents of the pipe as well.
Back in the modem days, if I wanted more bandwidth I either bought a faster modem or added more lines and pooled the modem inputs. Bell did not care how long I was using the phone line(s) a minute a week, or 24/7 it was the same cost.
When the internet was young and only the early adopters were heavy users unlimited 5 mbps was the norm.. html pages were simple (many html editors to this day will tell you how long the page will take to load over a 56K modem) , bittorrent was in its infancy, limewire/shareaza/napster had their day. Today we are in the land of WEB2.0 pages, streaming video in HD and other high bandwidth legal applications over the internet.. and bell and the cable companies are losing their revenue streams.. Gone are the days I paid $300/month in long distance charges, no more $150/month for cable so now these people need to find some other way of getting this money out of me.
If someone wants a low bandwidth plan then let them have it.. you want 1.5mbps at $10/month and I want 1.5 Gbps @ $150/month then so be it. Just don't limit my usage whether its ftp,http, smtp, bittorrent, media streaming, just don't limit my usage.
As a BBS operator I didn't care what speed modem you connected at.. 300 bps - 56kbps no matter to me.. I always had the highest speed modems available (as a fidonet/NANet hub I had to transfer a lot of data so I needed high speed modems just to move the bits around.. Since phone lines were my limiting resource, everyone was given a time limit per day of usage, whether they played a game or messaged or downloaded for that time period I did not care.. If I wanted to increase my revenue I added more lines and modems but once the hardware was paid for (fixed cost amortized over time and # of users) and the phone line was the only recurring cost.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by dwj7738.
Copyright NO. Trademark Yes. i.e. Adidas and the 3 stripes, Nike Swoosh, MAC Pitbull,
UBB not a good thing
I don't mind paying for a bigger pipe but I do object strenuously to having to pay for the contents of the pipe as well.
Back in the modem days, if I wanted more bandwidth I either bought a faster modem or added more lines and pooled the modem inputs. Bell did not care how long I was using the phone line(s) a minute a week, or 24/7 it was the same cost.
When the internet was young and only the early adopters were heavy users unlimited 5 mbps was the norm.. html pages were simple (many html editors to this day will tell you how long the page will take to load over a 56K modem) , bittorrent was in its infancy, limewire/shareaza/napster had their day. Today we are in the land of WEB2.0 pages, streaming video in HD and other high bandwidth legal applications over the internet.. and bell and the cable companies are losing their revenue streams.. Gone are the days I paid $300/month in long distance charges, no more $150/month for cable so now these people need to find some other way of getting this money out of me.
If someone wants a low bandwidth plan then let them have it.. you want 1.5mbps at $10/month and I want 1.5 Gbps @ $150/month then so be it. Just don't limit my usage whether its ftp,http, smtp, bittorrent, media streaming, just don't limit my usage.
As a BBS operator I didn't care what speed modem you connected at.. 300 bps - 56kbps no matter to me.. I always had the highest speed modems available (as a fidonet/NANet hub I had to transfer a lot of data so I needed high speed modems just to move the bits around.. Since phone lines were my limiting resource, everyone was given a time limit per day of usage, whether they played a game or messaged or downloaded for that time period I did not care.. If I wanted to increase my revenue I added more lines and modems but once the hardware was paid for (fixed cost amortized over time and # of users) and the phone line was the only recurring cost.