another question… is peer to peer the only thing that clogs up the network?

ciao!

The question now is who regulates their ‘moderation’ controls for bandwidth? They can ultimately decide to drop all P2P throughput to 1KBps if they like.

The timed-charging should have been OK for Globe had they followed the same charging system like Smart. They charge P5/15 mins and per every reconnection while Smart does it P10/30 mins irregardless of how many reconnection. It’s the implementation that is flawed and looks like they just wanted to steal money from those clueless users.

For me, if they can’t do away with implement bandwidth shaping due to infrastructure limitations (heck Comcast and other ISPs in the US face the same problems) they should just put out explicit policies for mobile data plans/policies against P2P but drop the price. You get lesser priviliges for wired broadband connection but get consistent service. End result – consumers know what they are getting for, comes cheaper, ISPs can put the bandwidth shaping infrastructure they want but provide consistent service.

E.g. P500-P1000/month no P2P allowed, unlimited data. I’d probably go for a rate of P700 for mobile internet…but that’s just my preference given the ‘limited’ service – I can do blogging, surfing, downloading thru HTTP/FTP, chat, and email (a normal web surfer profile). If I want P2P then I’d resort to DSL broadband lines at home. It pushes the use of mobile data plans to be used for when you’re actually mobile…not replace your DSL. You don’t do P2P when you’re on the road right? (Of course, some will argue that they don’t have acess in their location but either that or get crappy service?!).

Sorry for the long post Yuga as I just have too many things in my head that I want to make my point clear but I tried to be as concise as possible.

You think that the current solution of the carriers to do time-based charging instead of the old unlimited option is the right choice? At least only those who really need the 3G network will be the ones who will spend for it and they’ll get the quality speed expected.

It’s a dangerous suggestion. However, it this is only kept as a transitionary phase to make the mobile internet service consistent then I’m with it. It can give the providers time to upgrade the infrastructure to support broadband quality internet connectivity.

You know how the market is in the Philippines. Once everybody gets used to it, innovation stops for existing providers until a neophyte challenges them. I’d rather like this article not to forget the evolution of mobile internet AND emphasize the suggestions in the article as transitionary, not the end-all solution. My 2 cents