Pricing on the Internet should be customized so that heavy users are charged more than average users. -

Well, Comcast is already getting started, in some sense, by capping bandwidth usage at 250 MB per month (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2111373,00.asp). I'm not certain if they'll offer packages with more bandwidth at higher prices, but it could be an alternative. However, I don't understand the argument of "the dangers of the government controlling the internet." Do they think we're immediately going to turn into China and certain Wikipedia pages will be blocked? Isn't that illegal under the First Amendment already?

"Customiz[ing] Internet pricing so that heavy users pay more than average users" is an unfair, discriminatory policy as, unlike progressive taxation, $ charged is not in direct proportion with income. Perhaps a fair practice for providers would be to create commercial and residential service packages, bundling access and software which caters to a wide spectrum of users, resulting in a system of choices. In effect, the "higher end" services indiscriminately "fund" the more affordable options and pitch in to programs for subsidized access, e.g. for SMEs and start-ups in remote or no-access zones. The feds role is not to "police" the net, but rather to create programs which provide fair access.

Didn't they already try that? Wouldn't that have been the type of billing that was in place in the 90's??? We moved to unlimited to control the easy of sending a standard bill every month. Once they implement this "new" way of tracking hours on a PC, more people will need to be employed to police the users and that will result in more fees imagined by the internet provider. With Web 2.0, everything will have higher bandwidth so that won't really work once everyone is on that band wagon, so to speak.

Yeah, that would be "dialup"! Or maybe charge the outdated "luxury" tax? And, as mentioned, it would be a management nightmare. Yeah...just keep thinking up these original ideas!?!?!?!? You're probably getting a 6-figure salary.

Why is it that some things are ok for user pay models and others are not

today the question is about internet
what if there was a true user pay system in air travel
lbs/mile traveled - with an annual rebate for reaching targeted mileage hurdles

we pay for what we use in almost every other consumable good
on the one hand we embrace the free market system and then run away from it
when we don't like what it does

a larger debate might be on what exactly is a free market system and does it really exist?

cheers!

look where we are... we are not "light" users if we are blogging here. All the "light" users who go on to check email occasionally and maybe do research when required ... they would never find their way to an online debate about this topic. I know several who would love the idea of a more graduated usage, just like our phone plans. Prepaid internet minutes should be available from home a la Virgin mobile.

In areas where there is a lot of space between people, the Internet is a godsend for communication & increased economic opportunity. Pricing by amount of use would put us out of commission right away, since low population density tends to equate with low wage structure & low local economic activity. If it weren't for the Internet, many of us would literally have starved to death in recent years. In my case, this is especially true - I bucked big wigs in the state & caused Improvement for Low-Income People which resulted in several state senators telling me they wondered how I was surviving, since they had "seen to it" that I couldn't get a job.. I had a website, which saved me for several years. When I told them this, they were horrified. They blurted, "You can't! We control everything!" I replied, "You're wrong. God bless the Internet." My web site mysteriously got sabotaged Labor Day 2007 & I've been really up against the wall financially since, being unable to get it up myself yet. But somehow, I'll get there. I'm learning a lot about building sabotage-proof sites, since I haven't found anyone to trade with for a new site yet. It would be a nightmare to keep tabs on use in order to figure charges.. We don't need the amount of "government oversight" of us we have now, what with the ongoing assault on the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the UN-Patriot ACT.. The Internet is a tool to insure open communication & economic opportunity where there would otherwise be far less locally. There are already plenty of ways to pay for Internet access - we don't need more mandates in this regard.

This idea would only stifle the overall growth of the medium. Without heavy users, there is no content. Without content, there is no internet (or at least anything worth looking at). Without content, the average user will have nothing to do online and will stop using the internet all together.

This is a basic economic principal that can be applied to just about anything. Basically, the idea of "taxing" heavy internet users more, is equivalent to the idea that people who make more money should be taxed at a higher rate than people who make less money. What these people seem to forget is that without the people who make a lot of money (executives, business owners, etc.) the average person would not have a job and would be living in poverty. This is the same for the internet usage scenario.

In Houston, we have something new. A wireless provider who is introducing $35 unlimited internet wireless cards...they wouldn't like this idea. They don't like to keep track of every little minute we are online. There is no purpose to it. You either use the internet or don't; and very few people don't.

I believe that the Internet should remain free. Free from any government, corporation, single individual or group controlling what WE can and cannot see or do on the Internet. We should have an Internet that, unfortunately, allows people to spam, but also allows people, in repressive countries like China, to see and hear anything on the Internet (whose to say that that email you get is spam or not. If it says "freedom" or "Democracy" China might mark that as "spam"). Freedom brings a breathtaking amount of innovation from people around the world. If the Internet stays free from any form of censorship, we will find that the human race will blossom into something so wonderful that our current imagination cannot grasp the possibilities. When the Internet is controlled by each single individual to freely choose what that individual would like, we will find that problems will be fixed in ways we now say are impossible. LET THE INDIVIDUAL CHOOSE!!!

Keep large organizations (this includes Governments) from dictating what we can do.
LET THE INDIVIDUAL CHOOSE!!!

Joshua Delcore

If ISPs are worried about the bandwidth consumption, they should consider sitting at the negotiation table with merchants such as Amazon or Google to revenue-share. Leave customers out of the equation.

Second solution: Internet is a utility. Over time, when bandwidth becomes REALLY cheap, then we can "meter" Internet usage like water or electricity.

Most hosting sites already have different pricing tiers based on how many GB per month are served. I think some of the responses to this note are confused about government control (what you see, etc.) and normal pricing models. There aren't very many areas of the "free" economy where what you consume is actually free. You are free to consume what you are willing to pay for. In addition, I don't suspect that heavy bloggers are the real heavy internet users. After all, blogging is mostly text; video, graphics, and music are the bandwidth eaters. While I prefer the simpler, single price model, I certainly understand the arguments for charging more for very high usage customers.

Should we also institute a charge for heavy users of public libraries?