🚀 go-pugleaf

Lee S. Bumgarner wrote:
> 
> During the two short, unsuccessful weeks in which I tried to sell
> computers, I had a longish conversation with a member of the MS-Borg
> about a number of subjects. Among other things, we talked about how US
> residents would pay for Net usage in the future. I said eventually US
> citizens would be charged according to how much they used the network.
> He said  is simply too complicated and expensive to charge that way. I
> should have told him how the US is unusual in its pricing structure,
> with many other state owned telecom companies charging according to
> use.
> 
> I thought of this conversation when I read on the front page of
> USAToday the strain Net usage is putting on the US�s phone system. It
> is only a matter of time before we will move to a usage based pricing
> structure. It was bound to happen, though. You can have only so many
> ads on TV with URLs in them before usage really started to take off.
> Yet I�m curious about the details of such a move.  Will it drive your
> local mom&pop ISP out of existence? I think yes. Too much of the Net
> is still stuck in the early 90�s.  And what about the .edu�s and
> org�s? Maybe they could buy huge chunks of Net usage at a discount
> rate. I�m sure the FCC would have something to say if they couldn�t.
> 
> Although I must admit a change of view on this subject (you could
> probably find a post of mine a year ago ranting against this idea),
> usage based Net access makes the most sense. It is the only way both
> consumers and network owners can both win. Network people would have a
> reason for you to use their network and you could probably get a fair
> deal on email, since it is so small.
> 
> The big question is what happens to the Web. US users have grown so
> accustom to unlimited access to this particular killer app that a
> backlash is likely. It shouldn�t last long, however, if competition
> drives the price down. There might be the inadvertent benefit of the
> decrease of crap on Usenet. Cost has a wonderful way of making one
> more mature. One might buy  a gig�s worth of usage a month. (How many
> gigs does the average user download?) Regardless, usage based Net
> access allows the laws of supply and demand to take hold and provides
> for the further growth of the Net. We�ve had our fun, now the Net has
> to grow up.
> 
> -l
> --
>       //  A  M  I  G  A                       |Lee S. Bumgarner
> ox\\x//============================---        |Will write for food -
>    \X/    R  3  W  L  Z                       |Blackstone/VA
> This .sig stolen with permission              |Nethead since '93


Yes-- I saw this article too and posted a message about it yesterday.
It appears that the local telcos have not been too prepared for
anything, lately. With the explosion of pager and cell phone
exchanges -- you'd like to think that they would have looked ahead
and been prepared -- but apparently -- NOT!

I saw another news clip on CNN today and they said the cost will,
eventually be passed on to the consumer - or the local telcos.

The heavy usage is already taking it's toll on the east and west
coasts -- and I've experienced problems making calls in the DC area.

What's next?

(Ken)




-- 
-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -

"Hungry men and women cannot wait for economic discussions or
 diplomatic meetings -- and their hunger rests heavily on the
 consciences of their fellow men."

			President John F. Kennedy