June 26, 2006

How Tariff Rebate Passthrough would work

Dave Siegel posted a challenge to my Tariff Rebate Passthrough net neutrality proposal, claiming that technical implementation would be unduly burdensome, and also touching on the fact that consumers generally prefer flat-rate to metered pricing. I think the best response would be to spell out, in a little more detail, how it would work. Along the way, I think I can answer Dave’s (and anybody else’s) concerns.

I continue to think that Tariff Rebate Passthrough is a compromise that meets pretty much everybody’s legitimate needs, and a reasonable fraction of everybody else’s other desires to boot.

Comments

6 Responses to “How Tariff Rebate Passthrough would work”

  1. The Monash Report»Blog Archive » Simple legislative language for Tariff Rebate Passthrough on June 26th, 2006 6:19 am

    [...] One of the best features of Tariff Rebate Passthrough is that, even with pricing flexibility, it can be implemented using simple legislative language. There only have to be three stipulations: [...]

  2. The Monash Report»Blog Archive » The two Internets, Jeffersonet and Edisonet, and why they need to be regulated differently on April 17th, 2007 6:24 am

    [...] If it were not for Edisonet, extreme net neutrality would be fairly harmless. If it were not for the huge public benefits of Jeffersonet, letting the telecom carriers have their way on non-neutral pricing wouldn’t be so bad. But given the presence of both, a middle course is needed. Fortunately, one is available that gives appropriate treatment to Jeffersonet and Edisonet alike, without giving tasks to regulatory agencies that are much different from the kinds they actually do a pretty good job of performing already. Tariff Rebate Passthrough shows the way. [...]

  3. Stuart Venters on April 25th, 2007 12:01 pm

    How would this tarrif be applied in the case where the connection between the information provider and consumer traverses multiple service providers? (As in the provider’s ISP, a transit network, and the consumer’s ISP.)

  4. Andy Rondeau on April 26th, 2007 4:22 pm

    This proposal is waaaay too confusing and complicated. Why not price the internet like electricity? Charge everyone a minor (about $5 / month) connection fee, and then charge a flat rate per gigabyte downloaded. Heavy bandwidth users will end up footing the bill for their usage, and market forces will push ISPs to continually lower their price per gigabyte. This will also mitigate problems with uncapped cable modems, as customers who abuse it will end up paying large usage fees. In addition, light internet users might be tempted to connect to broadband as their total bill could be something like $10 a month.

  5. Curt Monash on April 26th, 2007 7:37 pm

    Andy,

    So we have to PAY to receive advertising?

    That could screw up the advertising-supported business model.

    Which in turn could screw up the availability of things that we DO want.

    I think publishers should have the option of paying for delivery, as they do now.

    CAM

  6. Net neutrality and sponsored data — a middle course | DBMS 2 : DataBase Management System Services on January 27th, 2014 9:36 am

    [...] I wrote about network neutrality in 2006-7, the issue was mainly whether broadband providers would be allowed to ship different kinds of data [...]

Leave a Reply




Feed including blog about enterprise technology strategy and public policy Subscribe to the Monash Research feed via RSS or email:

Login

Search our blogs and white papers

Monash Research blogs

User consulting

Building a short list? Refining your strategic plan? We can help.

Vendor advisory

We tell vendors what's happening -- and, more important, what they should do about it.

Monash Research highlights

Learn about white papers, webcasts, and blog highlights, by RSS or email.