-
Website
http://techliberation.com/ -
Original page
http://techliberation.com/2008/08/01/if-bandwidth-is-abundant-it-cant-be-scarce-so-why-cant-we-have-net-neutrality/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
MikeRT
184 comments · 6 points
-
eee_eff
800 comments · 8 points
-
mwendy
73 comments · 2 points
-
Ryan Radia
176 comments · 5 points
-
Richard Bennett
612 comments · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
The Ugliness of Privacy Notices
4 days ago · 4 comments
-
Open Source is Not the Enemy
5 days ago · 3 comments
-
Broadband as a Human Right (and a short list of other things I am entitled to on your dime)
3 weeks ago · 18 comments
-
“Internet Freedom”: How Statists Corrupt Our Language
1 week ago · 7 comments
-
No, Seriously, U.S. Broadband Competition Sucks
3 weeks ago · 15 comments
-
The Ugliness of Privacy Notices
The key is explaining what is meant economically by a "scarce resource" and why it matters. Food is abundant in the United States, too, but it would be senseless to have a "food neutrality" requirement in which everything you eat comes at the same per-pound price.
When it comes to monthly bills, consumers don't like to think about them. To the extent that they must think about them, they prefer to think about a regular fixed expense - even if this means that for some months they may get less value out of that fixed monthly expense.
What concerns me about the “Ramsey two-part tariff” pricing model is the potential for the initial demarcation point to remain the eternal demarcation point.
If a demarcation point is set just above the usage patterns of 95% of customers today, but then either those usage patterns substantially increase or the provider's bandwidth costs substantially decrease - there will be little incentive to increase the demarcation point. Why would providers ever want to reduce the amount of metered bandwidth they sell? Especially if consumers have finally been trained to accept that particular point as the demarcation point.