Over the past couple years, innovative services such as P2P, VoIP, and Internet TV made the Internet so much more useful. A clear sign that telecom providers are unable or unwilling to carry these services is the net neutrality debate. It is a given that these companies would sell consumers more speed than what they could provide on the basis that the nightmare scenario that everybody uses said maximum speed simultaneously is highly unlikely. It is also a given that many companies are out for profit, and that has been one of the major barriers to innovation in our capitalistic world today. Taking a page from the University of Texas at Austin ITS playbook, I would like to suggest a middle ground where competitors can somehow play fair.
My proposed solution revolves about one question: Would you rather be limited by speed or the actual amount of data transferred? Like many of my friends, I would rather be limited by the latter. Therefore, I would like to propose Internet service plans in which the speed remains constant, but the quota is tiered. Once a user exceeds this quota, they are reverted to slower speeds (in my University’s case, it is dial-up speeds, but that’s adjustable) or given the option to buy more data transfer allocation. I believe that this would be mutually beneficial to innovators and service providers alike because:
- It is an objective method to penalize those who use “disproportionate amounts of resources”
- It opens streams of revenue in the form of customers purchasing extra data transfer allocations when they must have the speed.
- It has the potential to raise awareness of additional services the ISP provides (e.g. Use ___ with our service and it will not count against your transfer allocation).
While I salute those who carry this country forward in technological advances, this is where I am willing to meet those with an obligation to please their stockholders.
