decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Unlimited connections ... and QoS | 196 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Stabalized Market vs Monopoly/Cartel
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 01:47 PM EST

Your example of the all-you-can-eat places is slightly faulty. First off - what you're describing is a pricing war. Which isn't necessary unless you have someone trying to push someone else out of the market.

For example, a really small town with only one restaurant that doesn't want a second restaurant in the market.

But when you're talking a large city - there's way too much variety. And way too much competition. I don't know of any significantly sized community that has a single Corporation that owns the bulk of the restaurants in that community. It just doesn't happen.

So yea... prices lower. But the smart restaraunt owners don't dip below a certain minimum profit generating model which will not only keep them in business, but will ensure funds for a rainy day.

As a result, the market stabalizes.

Are the ISPs running a broken model? I don't think you have presented any evidence to actually back that. Is it - in some areas - a stabalized market with appropriate competition to keep the prices from being inflated? I think so!

In those environments where the telecoms have taken over the market so the competition has been removed: well - they're certainly generating profit. This is - in my humble opinion - just another way a regulated cartel/monopoly-type market is trying to arrange to boost their profits.

In my humble opinion: If they don't want to be regulated - then allow other competition to move in! Stop buying up every competitor that enters the market just to continue to control said market.

In my area, one of the two primary telecoms that control the market (including the ISP connections) claimed a 2011 profit of $1.2 Billion. I would hardly call that a "failing model". Granted, that's accross all their products/services. But there's certainly been no claims of a "failure to generate profit" in any of their official filings when it comes to internet connections.

The profits certainly speak to the fact that the "problem" the telecoms are currently speaking of doesn't actually exist.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Unlimited connections ... and QoS
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 01:50 PM EST
Bearing in mind most of us use far less than our fair share of connectivity, the
best model (which would enable ISPs to lose their unprofitable customers :-) is
"unlimited with throttling".

One ISP over here offers quite a sensible setup - the basic is a monthly cap but
unlimited speed. The next step up is that traffic between midnight and 6am is
unmetered, but the cap applies to the rest of the day. And the top is unlimited
any time.

But as I said, I'd prefer throttling. Low usage customers get a QoS of full
speed. Heavy users simply find any last mile congestion hits them
preferentially. And if there should be upstream congestion, they get their
connection throttled back.

The ISP can then force heavy users onto a more expensive plan, or persuade them
to cut back their usage.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )