Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Apr 2011 10:20 UTC
Internet & Networking You know all that talk about net neutrality in the US? How for instance Verizon and Google want net neutrality to apply only to something they call the 'wired' internet, which is apparently somehow different from the 'mobile' internet? Well, while you Americans are only talking about it, us Dutch are once again way ahead of the curve: the largest of the three main carriers has announced its intention to start charging extra for services like VoIP, instant messaging, Facebook, and so on, with the other two carriers contemplating similar moves. The dark future of the web, right here in my glorified swamp.
Thread beginning with comment 470891
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Purely a matter of money
by danieldk on Sat 23rd Apr 2011 14:16 UTC in reply to "Purely a matter of money"
danieldk
Member since:
2005-11-18

I disagree. They should charge by bandwidth. E.g. 10 Euro per month for 1MBit/s, 20 Euro per month for 3.6 MBit, etc.

Such subscriptions may amount to bandwidth limits, but have two advantages:

- No hidden bills for customers if you go through a monthly allotted limit.
- Even if you have an 1Mbit/s subscription, you could use VOIP services, but the quality will just be worse than 3.6 of 7.2 MBit/s.

Anyway, the main issue with KPNs new policy is that it discriminates against new services. Suppose that I make a great new service that changes the mobile world. KPN could decide they want their share of the pie (by adding it to a more expensive package), or block the service completely. This of course, is not fair, they are just providing the infrastructure.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Purely a matter of money
by avgalen on Sat 23rd Apr 2011 14:51 in reply to "RE: Purely a matter of money"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Charging for bandwidth (per second) instead of used bandwidth (per month) is probably not a viable option for KPN. The problem is that with 1 Mbit per second you can still cause about 300 Gigabyte of bandwidth per month.

Charging for bandwidth (per month) is actually a very good motivator for KPN NOT to block "the next killer-app" because it would earn them money. Also, the Opta (supervising organisation) seems to allow charging extra for access to applications. It is extremely unlikely that they would allow blocking applications entirely

I am not happy at all with this change by KPN, but I think we will have to realise that the current situation (unlimited internet for 10 Euro) is simply not sustainable. If it DOES turn out to be sustainable for other companies KPN will see lots of people switch to those companies and not make any money anymore (free market FTW). Of course, that requires a healthy, competitive market and this might not be the case (oligopoly with a very high limit for new companies to enter the market). The end result would then be that consumers will have to pay more and that all companies in this oligopoly will make more money than before. And then Opta should intervene

Reply Parent Score: 2

danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Charging for bandwidth (per second) instead of used bandwidth (per month) is probably not a viable option for KPN. The problem is that with 1 Mbit per second you can still cause about 300 Gigabyte of bandwidth per month.


Seriously, who is using full bandwidth all day? People have to sleep, work, spend time with their children, etc. So as long as a phone is not used as a modem to download (why would you, since Ziggo offers connections with 120MBit downstream?), even the most demanding users would probably use 1/30th and the rest of the consumers far less.

I am not happy at all with this change by KPN, but I think we will have to realise that the current situation (unlimited internet for 10 Euro) is simply not sustainable.


It is, at proper bandwidths. Anyway, we both agree on the fact that this is not a good solution to the problem (regardless of whether the problem actually exists).

Edited 2011-04-23 16:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Purely a matter of money
by WereCatf on Sat 23rd Apr 2011 15:37 in reply to "RE: Purely a matter of money"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I disagree. They should charge by bandwidth. E.g. 10 Euro per month for 1MBit/s, 20 Euro per month for 3.6 MBit, etc.


I agree. That's exactly what I have in fact: I pay 9.90e a month for 1Mbps bandwidth, no restrictions on the amount or type of the data transmitted except for BitTorrent data which they do not want to have to deal with. (I can understand that, though, and I atleast have no reason to complain about such when everything else is so great) Absolutely fantastic to use.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Purely a matter of money
by JAlexoid on Sat 23rd Apr 2011 20:42 in reply to "RE: Purely a matter of money"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I disagree. They should charge by bandwidth. E.g. 10 Euro per month for 1MBit/s, 20 Euro per month for 3.6 MBit, etc.


Technically would result in an overburdened network. Your phone will be trying to connect to the tower at maximum speed available, thus using up the same bandwidth you would be using up by actually using the network that powers the tower. There is no bandwidth problem of the network that powers the towers, the problem is the actual radio spectrum overcrowding...

Reply Parent Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Technically would result in an overburdened network. Your phone will be trying to connect to the tower at maximum speed available, thus using up the same bandwidth you would be using up by actually using the network that powers the tower. There is no bandwidth problem of the network that powers the towers, the problem is the actual radio spectrum overcrowding...


Of course the phone will be able to connect to the network at max speed, it's the bandwidth that is limited and that is all software. As for techically being possible... well, it ALREADY IS in country-wide use here in Finland, all major operators do it and it works just peachy.

Reply Parent Score: 3