
Congressman: there should be a law against Internet caps - vaksel
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/congressman-there-should-be-a-law-against-internet-caps.ars
======
scott_s
We have been operating with the illusion for a long time now that bandwidth is
an infinite resource. We could get away with this because most people didn't
have computers that could handle large amounts of data, and they didn't have a
reason to handle large amounts of data. That's changed. Computers are faster,
hard drives are bigger, and people want to stream movies. Most people didn't
want to use all of the bandwidth available to them, so we could pretend it was
infinite.

But it's not. It's finite. It seems obvious to me we need to move to the same
model we use for electricity and water: pay for what you use.

What's strange to me is many of the people who I know are technically
knowledgeable decry bandwidth capping, but don't propose a simple pay-for-
what-you-use model. I agree that advertising infinite bandwidth and then
charging for "overusage" is wrong. But I also recognize that a flat-fee for
widely variable usage isn't sustainable for ISPs.

~~~
CWuestefeld
I hate the idea of caps on my data transfers. I don't want to have to pay per-
GB fees.

I also hate the idea of having to pay-as-I-go for LD telephone, for minutes on
my cellphone, for gas to power my car. I mean, I paid almost $30K for my car;
why should I have to fork out more money just to use what I've already bought?
</sarcasm>

Really, I do hate it. But if we don't allow companies to make money by
providing bandwidth, then no one will want to enter the market, and without
competition we'll never get better or cheaper services.

~~~
req2
If we don't allow companies to make money by providing roads, then no one will
want to drive!

~~~
CWuestefeld
Maybe you're right. Although they're rare, there is certainly precedent for
private roads, and many of these are successful. For example: "The Dulles
Greenway is a private road built in the western suburbs of Washington, D.C.,
in 1995. Though constructed with some restrictions set by the state, it was
built with private money and is run as a for-profit business. The first year
it opened, 6.1 million trips were made on the road. In 2006, 21 million trips
were made. This type of private toll road has the ability to move large
numbers of people without the aforementioned problems associated with the
federal interstates that we are told are indispensable. It has shown its
viability, and we might well be seeing many more of these private toll roads
in the future." See <http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0809d.asp>

------
anthonyrubin
Ridiculous. Should providers be able to advertise unlimited access and then
limit access? No. Should limited access be illegal? No.

------
acgourley
I'm amazed how comfortable people are with low usage customers subsidizing
high usage customers. It strikes me as profoundly unfair. ISP's are no angels,
I know, but I'm not talking about any specific case, just the notion of caps
in general.

As long as the pricing is fair I think tiered/capped _traffic agnostic_
pricing is fine. I think some people are caught up in their general disgust
with what they see as regional monopolies, and directing it at this general
issue.

~~~
javanix
Caps are perfectly fine as long as they are sufficient - but what happens when
the ISPs want to better utilize their bandwidth, and decide to lower their
limits, rather than increasing their capabilities? There's no regional
competition to worry about, so there would be no incentive to add capabilities
when the alternative is basically free.

------
ShabbyDoo
For a moment, let's consider a local coffee shop (or, for that matter,
Starbucks). As a libertarian, I believe the pricing model for a cup of coffee
is the owner's decision, not the government's. Pay for each cup, pay less for
subsequent cups, free refills...none of my business. If I don't like it, I can
go to another coffee shop or open up my own.

Pipes and wires to my house are a different manner. Unlike with the coffee
shop, my local government gave a company an exclusive right to serve my house.
No competing companies can run redundant pipes or wires if the original
companies aren't offering up good deals. While its debatable whether or not
government should offer such exclusivity, it has. So, without government
intervention, the companies granted these rights will raise prices to the
point of profit maximization -- a level of profit that would lead a rational
bidder to pay tons for the exclusive license to serve my town. Think cellular
frequency auctions. Instead of auctioning off rights as a means of indirect
tax collection, most towns (or states) granted basically free exclusive
licenses with the caveat of pricing and service oversight. The natural gas
monopoly has to petition the state (at least in Ohio) to raise rates. And, I
think the cable companies have to petition the local municipalities. So, I
don't blame these companies as they're just doing what their contracts
(might?) allow. Instead, I find fault with the local governments for selling
their citizens short with bad contracts or oversight boards. Who's watching
these government-imposed monopolies?

------
ilitirit
Personally, I'd kill for a 40GB cap. I live in South Africa and I've been
paying around $30 per month for a 2GB international cap. I wouldn't at all be
surprised if the average user in the US used less than 40GB per month.

That said, the idea of a law banning Internet caps is ridiculous, and could
possibly do more harm than good.

------
sjsivak
The switch to internet cable/video is on the horizon. With services like Hulu
and technologies like Boxee it is just a matter of time. Hopefully the cable
companies will find a new way to make money, probably through on-demand
content, and not have to actually start using this sort of bandwidth capping.

------
quoderat
Internet access should become a public utility, since we've so badly screwed
the pooch by creating monopolies by government fiat.

~~~
anthonyrubin
So the solution to these supposed monopolies created by government
intervention is a monopoly created by the government?

~~~
lanaer
The government might actually want to do something to improve our broadband
standing in the world (in terms of the quality & adoption of our broadband).
The current monopolies have no such motivation.

Not that I’d want to depend on the government to do so. But hey, can’t be any
worse than the current situation, right?

~~~
Radix
The government ought to put telcos and cable companies on the same level as
data carriers then go away.

I can download movies, and play games. Broadband is currently fast enough for
me to be happy. Why should we look at the rest of the world and complain. It's
like the rich comparing themselves to the uber rich then complaining.

------
frisco
When I first saw the title I thought congress was trying to ban CRUISE CONTROL
FOR COOL!

A little confused for a second when I realized what they were actually talking
about, but then it made much more sense. Would have been funny to have a
"YouTube Reform Act of 2009" or such though.

