Fixing the Internet: pay by the amount of usage

[kranky]

John Dvorak's column in PC Magazine this month is about the benefits that would come from charging Internet users by the amount of data.

Spam: Spammers couldn't afford to pay to email spam to 40 million people. And people receiving spam would be less tolerant because it would cost them money to receive it.

Performance: Bandwidth hogs would have to pay a lot more and many of them would just use it less. More bandwidth for everyone.

Fewer DoS attacks: The zombie attacks are carried out by DSL and cable users who's unprotected systems were infected. If their monthly bill would triple, they would be more motivated to do something about security.

More broadband: Broadband sellers could add higher-speed connections everywhere. People will pay for better connections, and might refrain from downloading gigabytes of crap for no good reason because of cost.

The average user would pay less - not more - enabling lower monthly costs for light users. The ISPs could try to keep basic service very cheap and then try to upsell other services.

 

[UglyCasanova]

BF1942: wouldn't exist

 

[Joemonkey]

bleah that's horrible

 

[The Dancing Peacock]

aren't some isp's capping bandwith at like 3gb/month?

 

[poopaskoopa]

Originally posted by: kranky
John Dvorak's column in PC Magazine this month is about the benefits that would come from charging Internet users by the amount of data.

Spam: Spammers couldn't afford to pay to email spam to 40 million people. And people receiving spam would be less tolerant because it would cost them money to receive it.

Performance: Bandwidth hogs would have to pay a lot more and many of them would just use it less. More bandwidth for everyone.

Fewer DoS attacks: The zombie attacks are carried out by DSL and cable users who's unprotected systems were infected. If their monthly bill would triple, they would be more motivated to do something about security.

More broadband: Broadband sellers could add higher-speed connections everywhere. People will pay for better connections, and might refrain from downloading gigabytes of crap for no good reason because of cost.

The average user would pay less - not more - enabling lower monthly costs for light users. The ISPs could try to keep basic service very cheap and then try to upsell other services.

Dvorak can kiss my ass. I'm happy to pay $45 to get 2mbps/384kbps on my RR with no quota.

 

[minendo]

He brings up many points, but the entire gaming community would be gone. Chatting via instant messaging clients, forums, and online businesses would also take enormous hits. Instead of fixing the internet, his proposed solution would set it back at least 20 years.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: kranky
John Dvorak's column in PC Magazine this month is about the benefits that would come from charging Internet users by the amount of data.

Fewer DoS attacks: The zombie attacks are carried out by DSL and cable users who's unprotected systems were infected. If their monthly bill would triple, they would be more motivated to do something about security.

All this would do is make people mad. What's that? A new bug; you're out $100. You need to upgrade to WinXP SP1? There's more money. New version of Mozilla that fixes an exploit? That'll cost ya.

Unless companies re-emburse me for their security flaws, this won't fly.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Joemonkey
bleah that's horrible

 

[kranky]

I love the idea even if the only benefit is an end to spam. But flat rates have to be high enough to subsidize the high-volume users, and they are the minority. If 75% of customers would get a lower rate with metered usage, I'm for it.

 

[Soybomb]

A lot of small startup ISPs do cap and then charge if you go over your cap or slow you down alot. I understand completely why, bandwidths expensive. But I do not think this fixes anything and just hides a problem. People want more bandwidth, telco's need to come up with a cost effective way to build out their services.

 

[LAUST]

Screw That!

 

[GhettoFob]

and might refrain from downloading gigabytes of crap for no good reason

but that's what the internet is for

 

[Utterman]

C'mon, we are Americans!

We love having unlimited everything. Even if there were a cap at 100Gb a month, people would freak out because of it.

 

[jteef]

and whats going to stop some kid from remotely directing a large DDoS to one of the kids he goes to school with causing say a $5000 monthly bill. are we going to have to start paying for internet insurance too? I have to imagine that somebody has tried this before and probably failed since I am unaware of any major isps who do this now.

jt

 

[PsychoAndy]

I'm sure someone's thought of this previously. I'd probably be against it. If people in my neighborhood are paying 45 bucks a month to just look at websites and download the newest Avril Lavigne song, then they can subsidize the gigs that flow thru my computer.

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: jteef
and whats going to stop some kid from remotely directing a large DDoS to one of the kids he goes to school with causing say a $5000 monthly bill. are we going to have to start paying for internet insurance too? I have to imagine that somebody has tried this before and probably failed since I am unaware of any major isps who do this now.

jt

I would rather they throw the kid to a real jail for a year or so. Make it example for other script kiddies out there.

 

[her209]

That's the dumbest idea.

Some cracker gets into my computer and I have to foot the bill because the software company *ahem ahem* did a bad job of creating it. I can see the number of lawsuits flying around.

 

[Aceshigh]

Horrible idea.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Not a bad idea when you really think about it. If we're to be held liable for the gigantic security holes in the software we use, we would certainly have a slam dunk winner against whoever sold it to us. That means every user on earth would wind up in Redmond knocking on M$'s door, summons in hand. They'd either have to learn what they were doing or they'd be sued out of existence. Either way, maybe we'd all get software that didn't require a new security patch every month.

As for the rest of that drivel, the way to fix the internet is to start charging Dvorak for every stupid, unworkable idea he comes up with over his 3 martini/4 bong-hit lunches. Use that money to give every user on earth free internet.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: LAUST
Screw That!

 

[ReiAyanami]

so spammer sends u 100 e-mails and clogs your mailbox, your e-mail client downloads the e-mails and COSTS U!


that means u would have to pay as much as the spammer, its a two way street.

 

[BillGates]

No.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

spammers send only a few email, it gets amplified laters. ex a spammer uploads only 1 email, but it gets into 100 boxes. this will do nothing to stop spam.

 

[Zugzwang152]

leave the dial-up people to their cheap service, expand bandwidth for heavy users. Justify the cost, and I'm willing to pay for it, but you better give me the kbps...

 

[SSP]

Worse idea ever!!!!!!!!!