SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Letting go of an obsession with net neutrality could free technologists to make online services even better.
Two years ago Mung Chiang, a professor of electrical engineering at Princeton, believed he could give customers more control. One simple adjustment would clear the way for lots of mobile-phone users to get as much data as they already did, and in some cases even more, on cheaper terms. Carriers could win, too, by nudging customers to reduce peak-period traffic, making some costly network upgrades unnecessary. “We thought we could increase the benefits for everyone,” Chiang recalls.
Chiang’s plan called for the wireless industry to offer its customers the same types of variable pricing that have brought new efficiencies to transportation and utilities. Rates increase during peak periods, when congestion is at its worst; they decrease during slack periods. In the pre-smartphone era, it would have been impossible to advise users ahead of time about a zig or zag in their connectivity charges. Now, it would be straightforward to vary the price of online access depending on congestion and build an app that let bargain hunters shift their activities to cheaper periods, even on a minute-by-minute basis. When prices were high, consumers could put off non-urgent tasks like downloading Facebook posts to read later. Careful users could save a lot of money.
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/531616/the-right-way-to-fix-the-internet/
(Score: 2, Interesting) by lentilla on Saturday October 18 2014, @01:51AM
Back in the 1990's I had dial-in access to a Unix machine via a
commercial service. It cost one cent per minute. Now, whilst not
exactly expensive, every single second I was connected I had that
thought present in my mind. The decision making part of my brain was
constantly activated and it certainly altered my behaviour. I found
it stressful.
Mobile phones behaved in a similar fashion for a long time. On each
and every call a part of my brain would be allocated to constantly
re-running that decision matrix - evaluating cost verses value.
I simply like to make decisions once in a while. Put in computing
terms, humans work better in batch-processing mode. Cooperative
multitasking incurs stiff penalties for context switches.
For me, having constant access to a utility is part of what defines
the modern era. Internet, water, electricity. I use it when I want
it. Hunt/gather is not a particularly efficient system which is why
modern humans put a great deal of effort into building something once
and then reaping the benefits over an extended period. Having to
think about a directly attached cost would curb my usage in both peak
and off-peak times - after all, why exactly do I want to consult a
meter every time I decide to do something? Worse still, I have to
keep checking that meter in case the price spikes.
The cynical part of me knows the end-result of deploying such a
system. For end users the overall cost will stay more-or-less stable.
Providers will pocket the savings because they can devote resources
into gaming the system. This will be sold to end users as a way to
save money (which no doubt is possible) but this will not transpire in
reality. The providers will exchange their cost for our time - each
and everyone will need to watch the meter. Computers and technology
were meant to free us from drudgery. I don't like them being co-opted
into working against us.
(Score: 2) by dcollins on Saturday October 18 2014, @02:21AM
Great comment.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday October 18 2014, @03:18AM
Insightful +5
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18 2014, @09:50AM
What's up with the betaesque layout though?
(Score: 2) by everdred on Wednesday October 22 2014, @09:02PM
I've kept a browser tab open for days, waiting until I could finally moderate your comment.