Submission Summary: 0 pending, 1 declined, 1 accepted (2 total, 50.00% accepted)
"In the light of a recent submission ("Comcast Slightly Clarifies High Speed Extreme Use Policy") and its resulting discussion, I came up with a couple of questions to the Slashdot community:
(Let's call the bandwidth of the connection the maximum amount of bytes transmittable per second, e.g.: 6000kibibit/sec. download and 512kibibit/sec. upload for a generic cable or DSL pipe, and let's call traffic the actual amount of bytes transmitted over a period of time in each direction, e.g.: 90gibibyte/month download, meaning data transmitted from the ISP to you, and 90gibibyte/month upload, meaning data transmitted from you to the ISP. Also, read pipe as the shorthand for your internet connection.)
- Which ones of the following attributes (not necessarily including examples) are more important? Connectivity (being connected 24/7/365); Bandwidth (fast downloads); Traffic (large downloads); and Latency (ping time in games)?
- Would you pay for metered traffic (e.g. $0.01/10 mebibyte)? If you received a rebate for buying traffic up front (e.g. $8.99/100 gibibyte), would you?
- Would you buy a pipe that explicitly spelled out how big your traffic contingency was (upload and download), but guaranteed minimum traffic and restricted maximum traffic if you hit the contingency? What if there was no guaranteed minimum traffic (i.e. no connectivity in the worst case)?
- Suppose an ISP provided downloads that were free in the sense that they would incur no traffic on your pipe, but needed to be payed by the download (where the price per download was less than the price of traffic for the download), would you pay extra for such a feature?
Your opinions matter to me! While you can answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no' to each question, I welcome you to add as much detail as you feel necessary.
Thank you, folks!
When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing," it's the money. -- Kim Hubbard