Thread: News Stories
View Single Post
Old 2009-09-24, 14:12   Link #4082
Join Date: Nov 2008
I get it.

People want to use a massive amount of bandwidth to either download a movie or talk over voIP, but not pay any extra for it, outside of the fee from the provider of that service (not to be confused with the provider of the service they expect to get the extra bandwidth from, aka their ISP). The people providing those services want to provide them at low cost despite the fact that they are bandwidth hogs, so they don't want to pay for the extra bandwidth either. You want the ISP's to provide this massive amount of extra bandwidth at no extra cost, and you want the government to force them to. You do not care that those people who do not use voice IP or download movies do not want to pay for those services they never use, but will be forced to when the ISP is forced to pay for bandwidth provide them.

Say in an area of 500K people, 30K decide they want voice IP, and 50K decide they want to download 6 movies a week. Suppose that, due to infrastructure, available bandwidth in that area is not up to the extra load. Service for everyone suffers. So, 320K people suffer reduced service quality for the desires of 80K people, or the ISP's pay to increase the capacity through improved infrastructure, who pays for this? The ISP, in reduced profit? The 400K in increased prices? The 80K in increased prices?

You can bet your ass that if you let the FCC get deeper involved, they'll start looking at a lot more than bandwidth use. Is that what you people really want? Increased regulations by their very nature bring increased costs and increased monitoring. I'll pass, thanks.
autobachs is offline