Comcast wired Internet pay-as-they-go

[space-time]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/14/...d_billing/

[Spock]

space-time wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/14/...d_billing/

Comcrap to consumers - bend over and brace yourself.

[Jack D.]

According to Cohen, the move is all about fairness.

See, nothing to worry about, it's all about fairness!

[GGD]

Jack D. wrote:
According to Cohen, the move is all about fairness.

See, nothing to worry about, it's all about fairness!

I'm sure they want to lower the rates of all of the non-abusers, that's only fair.

[bazookaman]

Hey. That's a great idea. So along those same lines, if I only watch a dozen channels (that you can't get with a cheap package) than I should pay less than someone who watches 67 channels. Right?

[clay]

from the article:

"According to Cohen, the move is all about fairness. "People who use more should pay more and people who use less should pay less," he said."

anybody want to take bets on whether it plays out fairly or whether it just turns into a big money-grab by comcast? :boink:

[Gareth]

There's a certain logic for it either way. We don't get unlimited electricity/gas/water, but the internet is more like a telecom and we've come to expect unlimited phone calls.

If you're going to be paying for what you use, then you should be able to get any internet speed you want for the same price, because you'll just use the data faster, thus be paying more anyway. And if you barely use any internet at all (maybe you're on a vacation for the month), then the minimal charge should be very minimal.

Of course, I can't see any way in which Comcast would make this beneficial for the consumer. So I predict the same old prices with overage charges tacked on. And this is why there should be at least two reasonable high-speed carriers in every market. Comparing DSL to Cable just isn't fair, but it's generally the only two options most people have.