So there's a big buzz on the internets (A SERIES OF TUBES!) about throttling and paying per bandwidth usage. I'm going to lay down some of my thoughts, but I'm curious to know yours. My views aren't necessarily 100% right now, but I'm going to talk it out.

Throttling

So comcast and other providers have been killing torrent transmissions for a while know, and if you read Digg or Reddit even once per week, you've probably heard of it. Consumerist and Gizmodo have some good stuff on it too. Also, Azureus has an app that lets you tell if your service is being throttled.

This kind of stuff makes me unhappy. I guess I'd have to check the contract with comcast to know for sure, but I'm pretty sure the business agreement is that I give them money, and they give me internet. Not regulated internet, not port blocking, but straight up internet. I can do whatever I want on it. In return, ISPs should have legal immunity for the things done over their network simply because they provide the network and nothing more. You don't blame the person who builds a street when someone gets in a wreck, do you? Of course not! For ISPs, you don't blame them because the method of information transport and the information being transported are not the same thing.

I can understand if they want to save money by reducing their bandwidth usage, of which a large portion is probably due to torrents. (With youtube, hulu, and pr0n in a tight race).

This leads into the issue of paying per gigabyte kinda thing. I experienced this in lawrence with Sunflower. Let me say this. Sunflower blows. The speed was always pretty bad, and I had some reliability issues. It was 'pricey' for metered traffic too, and it metered both up and down bandwidth combined.

But, I think that metering bandwidth is an intelligent decision on the part of the the ISPs. This is something that we are used to with every other utility. Phones, water, power, gas, etc. are all metered. So why should internet be any different? While in the physical utilities, the companies have a limited resource, but the ability to transmit is fairly unlimited. For internet, the resource is unlimited, but the ability to transmit is limited and costly.

It should follow, then, that people pay by usage. Here's the reasoning. Some people pay alot for internet and use it very little. Others use it like crazy and pay less per gigabyte on flat rate plans. Don't get me wrong, I like unlimited internet, but it just doesn't make sense from an economic standpoint. Before streaming video was the name of the game and not everyone had internet, an ISP could handle traffic with no problem. Now that their resources are being strained, they need to put something in place that ensures that pay for what they want.

It should lead to cheaper internet for people who don't need lots of data downloading capability as well. However, since getting TV and movies over the internet is becoming more popular (and a business plan I can get behind. I really don't mind the commercials on hulu, I am fine with them because I get legal, high quality, on demand video) I wouldn't be surprised if this whole argument won't end up breaking down at some point.

I would contend that, in the short term, the people who use more should pay more. Traffic jams have been shown to be reduced by increasing tolls during peak hours. Why? Because people who don't HAVE to use the toll road will accept a longer drive to avoid a toll cost. People who need the path are more willing to pay more. In that way, pricing on a valuable item forces the system to operate based less on shortest path and more on the most effective path. The same, I believe, would be true of internet. If you start throttling usage with an intelligent pay scale, people that don't need as much will be encouraged to use less. In that way, the total amount of bandwidth being used may decrease (or it may stay nominal, I guess I can't really say).

Ultimately, though, the path to increasing the capability of an ISP is through technology advancements.. and that means $$. Why shouldn't they be allowed to ask for more money when demand for bandwidth is so high and the supply is limited? It's simple resource allocation.

The big caveat to all this is that the ISPs should not do this by limiting the TYPES of content I can view. It should only be the amount. I can argue that since they are private companies they can do whatever the hell they want. However, if that were to be the case, then I would need to have more competing options for internet access. That way economic forces would then cause companies who limit the sites you can visit to go out of business.

Here's the summary:

ISPs throttling specific kinds of traffic = lame

ISPs charging per gigabyte = probably a good decision in the long run

ISPs limiting content access by URL = oh dear lord hell no

Ya'll are too quiet.  I mean, I know summer has started, but FFS; I need something to read over here at work.

So, I've written a blog FOR you.  I just need you to fill in the blanks.

*****

Hey guys, how's it goin'?

Just a reminder, this summer I'm in _____.  I'm working for ____, and it really sucks.  I mean sure, the ____ part of it is good, but mostly I'm fairly miserable.  Also, my realtionship with _____ continues in a steady holding pattern; it's very similar to the last time we spoke.

I thought today I'd share a couple links and give blatantly over-bearing opinions afterwards!

First up, this gem: ________
God, I love that picture.  Isn't it perky?

Secondly, this, which I found on ____, my favorite Web 2.0 site: ______
I have to say, I'm really jazzed about the possibilites opened up by the article to the field discussed within.  It really makes me realize how bright the future is, and how much I have to be thankful for.

Third.  Grrrrr.  Look at this site: ________
HOW CAN SOMEONE THINK LIKE THIS!? MAN!  AAGH!  THIS JUST PISSES ME OFF SO MUCH!  THIS is what's WRONG with the world, and why we're all doomed!  Man, the world is in such a crappy place, and we're all gonna DIE!  I'm glad I think ____ instead!

I think that's all the links I wanted to share.  Oh, oh, howzabout a crazy life story!  So last ____ I was out with some friends at a ____ and we saw a ____.  My friend ____ was like, "Haha, look at that _____".  At which point, we challenged each other to see if either one of us would _____.  Turns out, I ____, but my buddy ____.

It's like they say in ____; "____________"!!

Talk to you soon!

-_____

*****

I will only give you my ____s if I get four of yours (because I'm posting enough for everyone, let's be honest).

Yes, I paid for music on the internet. I bought a song on amazon for $.99. I couldn't find it on seeqpod, altavista mp3 search, "index of" in google, or torrent. So I bought it.

It's the second song I've ever bought. My first was on DI.fm's store. It was nada - numbers. Good song. The one I just got is: Tripswitch -Silver (ott remix). Sure, I could have downloaded cardamar's free 3 hour chillout mix that had this song at the end of it. I could have taken audacity and cut the song out. 

But.. for one dollar, I got the song in a split second. Cokes cost more than that from a damn vending machine. And since bash.org will probably never take quotes I send them, here's one between me and my roommate when I was bitching about my computer lagging (I think the fan on the vid card is not working):

"I'm dropping more frames than Michael J. Fox at an eyeglass store"

Too soon? Probably.