Posted by
Matt Tooley in
Regardless of the FCC’s final outcome on network neutrality some form of usage-based billing may not be such a bad thing.
For example, as a result of being situated next to one of the world’s largest fresh water lakes, the city of Chicago offers an un-metered water service and flat-rate billing based upon the size of your house.
One would initially think that this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but what happens, is that it leads to a tremendous waste of water. After living in the city for a while, Chicagoans tend to get lax on how they use Lake Michigan’s resources. Simple tasks like watering the lawn and not paying attention (or at times even caring) can lead people to water the sidewalk or city streets. Trust me, I lived there and did it from time to time (of course not on purpose) and I saw many of my neighbors do it.
This isn’t all that much different from the Internet — downloading large files and never using them or sending large attachments to everyone in your address book effectively wastes bandwidth that could be used by others.
I now live in the Sonoran Desert where water is a precious commodity and I pay for every drop I consume. Now that my monthly bill is tied directly to how much I use, I quickly take all the recommendations on how to consume less water; such as ensuring that I have no leaky faucets, minimizing or eliminating the grass (or sidewalks) I water and not washing the family car in the driveway.
Now of course this isn’t a perfect analogy as water has intrinsic value per liter and a packet does not. And water companies are less concerned about peak usage as they have the ability to store reservoirs of water to tap into during peak hours. But I think the analogy is close enough to make the point that people should be made aware of their consumption of network bandwidth so as not to waste it like many of my former neighbors did with their water in Chicago.
At the end of the day, bandwidth is a limited network resource. If there is any way we can make consumers aware of how they are using their bandwidth to ensure they are not wasting it, it would greatly help everyone’s quality of service when using their Internet service. Usage-based billing is one of the most effective ways service providers can manage the costs of building out their networks while at the same time making users aware of their usage.
Bookmark this article!
BW is the topic I was hoping to find you discussing. Why do you guess that what we call “hi-speed” DSL or cable, here in the US, is not even considered hi-speed elsewhere? Also, some countries do consider it the ultimate commodity and want it to be free, or at least up to a certain speed, a speed higher than the average hi-speed in the states charges $40-50 a month++?
Also, what are the best technologies being planned to monitor traffic for billing purposes, and are there obstacles in place now that govern the speeds, or is it a failure of the national grid?
I would say “hi-speed” is relative to “dial-up” and a matter of marketing by the Internet Service Providers. It’s not the fastest in the world but rather a matter of economics. Its costly to move the bits and to build out the networks to move them faster but with time and market pressures the speeds will go up. Already, many of the cable companies are now offering 50 and 101 Mbps services.
Best planned technologies? Service providers are exploring technologies, such as the technology provided by Sandvine, to do accurate billing at high bit rates. In addition, they are looking to include more granular information in a subscriber’s bill to better educate them of the usage. There are no obstacles or failure in the national grid. Again, it is just a matter of economics.