I don’t want to go into to it here because I’m going to patent it, but take comfort in knowing that there’s a cool technical solution to the bandwidth hog problem just around the corner.

I just think the idea of threatening high-bandwidth users with service termination seems silly when alternative pricing solutions are available.

I don’t want to go into to it here because I’m going to patent it, but take comfort in knowing that there’s a cool technical solution to the bandwidth hog problem just around the corner.

I just think the idea of threatening high-bandwidth users with service termination seems silly when alternative pricing solutions are available.

I’ll retract my use of the term “abuse.” Perhaps “use more heavily than expected” would be a more accurate way to describe it. In either case, I don’t think it changes the substance of the issue.

I’ll retract my use of the term “abuse.” Perhaps “use more heavily than expected” would be a more accurate way to describe it. In either case, I don’t think it changes the substance of the issue.

The ISP has to have enough bandwidth so that performance will be reasonable during peak times (which I think are generally in the evenings for residential ISPs, although that’s just a guess). That means that for the rest of the day—probably 20-22 hours—bandwidth is effectively a non-scarce resource.

In a world with no transaction costs, ISPs follow the lead of cell phone companies and meter during peak hours and have unlimited bandwidth the rest of the time. However, this would greatly increase the complexity of the billing process, and would annoy and confuse consumers.

I think this point is buttressed by the statistics you cite, that a tiny fraction of Internet users abuse the network. It doesn’t make sense to impose the mental and administrative overhead of metered billing on 99 casual Internet users just to nail the one guy who leaves BitTorrent on 24/7. This is especially true since metering wouldn’t actually generate much additional revenues from these users. My guess is that the vast majority of the people using excessive quantities of bandwidth would not be willing or able to pay for that bandwidth, and would drastically curtail their usage if they were being charged by the bit.

The ISP has to have enough bandwidth so that performance will be reasonable during peak times (which I think are generally in the evenings for residential ISPs, although that’s just a guess). That means that for the rest of the day—probably 20-22 hours—bandwidth is effectively a non-scarce resource.

In a world with no transaction costs, ISPs follow the lead of cell phone companies and meter during peak hours and have unlimited bandwidth the rest of the time. However, this would greatly increase the complexity of the billing process, and would annoy and confuse consumers.

I think this point is buttressed by the statistics you cite, that a tiny fraction of Internet users abuse the network. It doesn’t make sense to impose the mental and administrative overhead of metered billing on 99 casual Internet users just to nail the one guy who leaves BitTorrent on 24/7. This is especially true since metering wouldn’t actually generate much additional revenues from these users. My guess is that the vast majority of the people using excessive quantities of bandwidth would not be willing or able to pay for that bandwidth, and would drastically curtail their usage if they were being charged by the bit.

The problem with the “market solution” is that there is not enough broadband choices in most areas to really make a market. Monopoly or duopoly is too often the case. If that changes, then “innovative” pricings schemes might be a good idea. Although honestly, to simply charge according to the meter doesn’t seem like much of an innovation. It is a choice that providers have abandoned, by and large, since the early days of AOL and Compuserve, where you were charged by the hour.

I’m probably a moderate user — not a hog, but more than average. It remains to be seen which side of the line I’d fall on if the ISP’s made a distinction.

The problem with the “market solution” is that there is not enough broadband choices in most areas to really make a market. Monopoly or duopoly is too often the case. If that changes, then “innovative” pricings schemes might be a good idea. Although honestly, to simply charge according to the meter doesn’t seem like much of an innovation. It is a choice that providers have abandoned, by and large, since the early days of AOL and Compuserve, where you were charged by the hour.

I’m probably a moderate user — not a hog, but more than average. It remains to be seen which side of the line I’d fall on if the ISP’s made a distinction.