Comcast/etc....

[Aaron]

> How would you deal with it from a business perspective?   Each month you
> get ?? cable channels or dish channels and you probably don't watch more
> than one at a time . . . yet you pay for the option of doing that.

But if I have 4 TV's I can watch 4 channels at a time.  I pay for 200+
ckannels and if I really want to watch all 200+ channels at the same time I
can do that.  I can even (GASP!) leave a TV on a channel and not watch it if
I want to.

> Unfortunately bandwidth isn't fixed quite like that . . . but what if it
> was?   What if they metered your speed.  You want more speed, you pay
more.
>   Do you think $40/month is reasonable for the typical bandwidth a home
> could suck down?   Now picture something as simple as a subdivision in
> terms of bandwidth.  Look at any typical MRTG graph and you'll see exactly
> why companies have to look at what they're doing.  Do you put in enough
> bandwidth everywhere to handle that crush?   How many ISP's have made
money
> by having a 1:1 dial up ratio?

This goes back to my earlier post.  We're not talking about dialups anymore.
Business models have to change.

> Personally, I think they should have metered bandwidth with pricepoints
for
> different levels of data connections.  I'm not saying have a
> "20gig/$50/month" limit, more like a window for download speeds.  If you
> have one PC, do you need more than 400K/sec?   A tiered pricing structure
> would give people the best of both worlds.

This could work.  I don't see any problem with it at all.  The major point
though is that if I'm paying for 400K/sec then I should be able to have 10
machines sharing it.