We’ve been hearing about potential bandwidth caps from various ISPs, and limited trials in various areas, for a few years. Time Warner’s is crazy-low.
My question is about advertising.
So if I go to a site which has a lot of rich media ads on it (flash applications, video, sound, Just-In-Time applications, etc.), all of which loads before the content you’re there to see.
When it comes down to it, viewing those ads is your “payment” for being allowed to view the content on the site. So in one respect, the fact that it loads first seems, somehow, fair to the people who are paying those advertisers.
However, when I might have to have it eat up my bandwidth, I feel like I’m paying for it again. Somehow that doesn’t feel right.
Isn’t there some way to make the advertisers or the content providers pay for that bandwidth instead of the consumer, who already has to view the ad as their payment?
You’re confusing the medium with its delivery system. You didn’t complain about having to buy a TV or radio, despite the presence of paid advertising on both.
And if you don’t want to waste your bandwidth on ads, just get AdBlock.
…because on TV or Radio, they don’t start charging me more when the ads eat up the bandwidth. Those are bandwidth-free mediums, so can’t really be compared.
What I’m saying is … the advertiser and the content provider appear to be under no incentive to reduce the size (how much bandwidth it consumes when viewed) of their advertising and content, because they directly pass the cost for delivering that content to the consumer.
See, right now the content provider has incentive to make me refresh the page billions of times. Every view or potential click gives him money or potential money. But every page refresh only costs him the bandwidth to deliver his content to me - it doesn’t cost him bandwidth to deliver advertising content to me.
I have to pay (with my bandwidth) for receiving his content, plus I pay (with bandwidth) for receiving the ad content, which may be considerable in side.
This is why I didn’t have a similar complaint on TV or radio - because I pay the “same” (in that case nothing, but let’s pretend it’s satellite radio) whether I’m experiencing content or ads. On the Web, I may pay MORE for experiencing ads. In ADDITION to experiencing the ads, which is supposed to be my payment for receiving the content in the first place…
*Isn’t there some way to make the advertisers or the content providers pay for that bandwidth instead of the consumer, who already has to view the ad as their payment?
*
They are paying. They pay for their bandwidth and you pay for yours. This system works fine. If your ISP is giving you a strict cap then vote with your dollars a find a new ISP.
FWIW, this business model was tried under NetZero. It didnt work.
*
the advertiser and the content provider appear to be under no incentive to reduce the size (how much bandwidth it consumes when viewed) of their advertising and content, because they directly pass the cost for delivering that content to the consumer.*
Again, they pay too. For instance, lets say casal media is pushing out a 400k flash object as an ad. That sure as heck costs them. Say they deliver this 1 million times in two days. Thats like a few T1s at 100% just for that one ad.
Advertisers know full well the size of their ads and they prefer the big “punch the monkey” ads because they think they get results. Or the flash video ad. etc.
If they are gonna “cap” bandwidth then they also need to refund it.
The point of unlimited bandwidth is users help each other. If I pay $10.00 a month and so do you, if you use the Internet 24 hours a day and I use it 2 hours, but pay the same we “share” the cost and thus make it reasonable for both of us.
If I pay $100/month for 24 hours and you pay 8.00/month for two hours per day the subsidy is lost.
And this is how a lot of things work. For instance, in Chicago I ride the subway, I pay $2.25 whether I ride one stop or all the way down to the end of the line. Same for buses. (I do realize some cities have zones). But what your doing is your spreading the cost so that the close in people don’t get all the breaks.
It’s like the US tax system, those who can afford to pay more, do so, because paying more for them isn’t going to hurt them as much. Is it strictly fair, no but it’s common.
I can tell you it has nothing to do with usage, it’s like Cable TV or anything else where there is limited or next to no competition. They want to charge more because they want to make more money. Once you put in DSL or cable TV, that is pretty much it. After a few months, those who want it, will get it. Then your stuck with trying to increase profits.
So if they want to cap usage fine, but then refund the difference to those who don’t use the cap. And also force cable companies and phone companies to hand over their lines for competitors, like they did to Ma Bell in the 80s, when we saw long distance rates fall through the roof
The incentive for the advertiser not to overdo ads is fairly simple - you’ll stop using the site they’re advertising on if they have too high an ad/content ratio, same as any other medium.
Generally speaking they dont want you to go that website once, they want you to return so you’ll keep getting expose to their ads.
If you dont stop using it, clearly you think the site is ‘worth’ the cost.