Editing Internet access (section)

==Pricing and spending==
[[File:Broadband Affordability.png|thumb|400px|<div style="text-align: center;">'''Broadband affordability in 2011'''</div><small>This map presents an overview of broadband affordability, as the relationship between average yearly income per capita and the cost of a broadband subscription (data referring to 2011). Source: Information Geographies at the Oxford Internet Institute.<ref name=InternetPopulation2011>[http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/#broadband-affordability "Broadband affordability"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140614024048/http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/ |date=2014-06-14 }}, Information Geographies at the Oxford Internet Institute</ref></small>]]

Internet access is limited by the relation between pricing and available resources to spend. Regarding the latter, it is estimated that 40% of the world's population has less than US$20 per year available to spend on [[information and communications technology]] (ICT).<ref name="HilbertWD38,5">{{cite journal | doi=10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.11.019 | volume=38 | issue=5 | title=When is Cheap, Cheap Enough to Bridge the Digital Divide? Modeling Income Related Structural Challenges of Technology Diffusion in Latin America | year=2010 | journal=World Development | pages=756–770 | last1=Hilbert | first1=Martin | url=http://www.martinhilbert.net/CheapEnoughWD_Hilbert_pre-print.pdf | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160706014401/http://martinhilbert.net/CheapEnoughWD_Hilbert_pre-print.pdf | archive-date=2016-07-06 }}</ref> In Mexico, the poorest 30% of the society spend an estimated US$35 per year (US$3 per month) and in Brazil, the poorest 22% of the population merely has US$9 per year to spend on ICT (US$0.75 per month). From Latin America, it is known that the borderline between ICT as a [[necessity good]] and ICT as a [[luxury good]] is roughly around the "magical number" of US$10 per person per month, or US$120 per year.<ref name="HilbertWD38,5"/> This is the amount of ICT spending people esteem to be a basic necessity. Current Internet access prices exceed the available resources by large in many countries.

Dial-up users pay the costs for making local or long-distance phone calls, usually pay a monthly subscription fee, and may be subject to additional per minute or traffic based charges, and connect time limits by their ISP. Though less common today than in the past, some dial-up access is offered for "free" in return for watching [[banner ad]]s as part of the dial-up service. [[NetZero]], [[Kmart (United States)#BlueLight Internet service|BlueLight]], [[Juno Online Services|Juno]], [[Freenet (ISP)|Freenet (NZ)]], and [[Free-net]]s are examples of services providing free access. Some [[Wireless community network]]s continue the tradition of providing free Internet access.

Fixed broadband Internet access is often sold under an "unlimited" or [[flat rate]] pricing model, with price determined by the maximum data rate chosen by the customer, rather than a per minute or traffic based charge. Per minute and traffic based charges and traffic caps are common for mobile broadband Internet access.

Internet services like [[Facebook]], [[Wikipedia]] and [[Google]] have built special programs to partner with [[mobile network operator]]s (MNO) to introduce ''[[zero-rating]]'' the cost for their data volumes as a means to provide their service more broadly into developing markets.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.newschallenge.org/challenge/2014/feedback-review/zero-rating-development-darling-or-net-neutrality-nemesis |title=Zero-rating: Development Darling or Net Neutrality Nemesis? |access-date=July 26, 2014 |last=McDiarmid |first=Andrew |publisher=Knight News Challenge |date=March 18, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140808054736/https://www.newschallenge.org/challenge/2014/feedback-review/zero-rating-development-darling-or-net-neutrality-nemesis |archive-date=August 8, 2014 }}</ref>

With increased consumer demand for streaming content such as video on demand and [[peer-to-peer file sharing]], demand for bandwidth has increased rapidly and for some ISPs the flat rate pricing model may become unsustainable. However, with [[fixed costs]] estimated to represent 80–90% of the cost of providing broadband service, the marginal cost to carry additional traffic is low. Most ISPs do not disclose their costs, but the cost to transmit a gigabyte of data in 2011 was estimated to be about $0.03.<ref>[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/gadgets-and-gear/hugh-thompson/what-is-a-fair-price-for-internet-service/article1890596/ "What is a fair price for Internet service?"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120209005530/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/gadgets-and-gear/hugh-thompson/what-is-a-fair-price-for-internet-service/article1890596/ |date=2012-02-09 }}, Hugh Thompson, ''Globe and Mail'' (Toronto), 1 February 2011</ref>

Some ISPs estimate that a small number of their users consume a disproportionate portion of the total bandwidth. In response some ISPs are considering, are experimenting with, or have implemented combinations of traffic based pricing, time of day or "peak" and "off peak" pricing, and bandwidth or traffic caps. Others claim that because the marginal cost of extra bandwidth is very small with 80 to 90 percent of the costs fixed regardless of usage level, that such steps are unnecessary or motivated by concerns other than the cost of delivering bandwidth to the end user.<ref name=Hansell-2008>{{cite news |first=Saul |last=Hansell |url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/time-warner-download-too-much-and-you-might-pay-30-a-movie/?ref=technology |title=Time Warner: Download Too Much and You Might Pay $30 a Movie |work=The New York Times |date=January 17, 2008 |access-date=June 6, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090126061232/http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/time-warner-download-too-much-and-you-might-pay-30-a-movie/?ref=technology |archive-date=January 26, 2009 }}</ref><ref>[http://www.comparebroadband.com.au/article_64_On--and-Off-Peak-Quotas.htm "On- and Off-Peak Quotas"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120331205209/http://www.comparebroadband.com.au/article_64_On--and-Off-Peak-Quotas.htm |date=2012-03-31 }}, Compare Broadband, 12 July 2009</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Leslie |last=Cauley |title=Comcast opens up about how it manages traffic |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=4692338&page=1 |publisher=ABC News |date=April 20, 2008 |access-date=June 6, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110215205818/https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4692338&page=1 |archive-date=February 15, 2011 }}</ref>

In Canada, [[Rogers Hi-Speed Internet]] and [[Bell Canada]] have imposed [[bandwidth cap]]s.<ref name=Hansell-2008/> In 2008 [[Time Warner]] began experimenting with usage-based pricing in Beaumont, Texas.<ref>{{cite magazine |first=Tom |last=Lowry |title=Time Warner Cable Expands Internet Usage Pricing |url=http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090331_726397.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily |magazine=BusinessWeek |date=March 31, 2009 |access-date=June 6, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090524225332/http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090331_726397.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily |archive-date=May 24, 2009 }}</ref> In 2009 an effort by Time Warner to expand usage-based pricing into the [[Rochester, New York]] area met with public resistance, however, and was abandoned.<ref>{{cite web |first=Evan |last=Axelbank |title=Time Warner Drops Internet Plan |url=http://rochesterhomepage.net/fulltext?nxd_id=85011 |publisher=Rochester Homepage |date=April 16, 2009 |access-date=December 6, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130604031655/http://rochesterhomepage.net/fulltext?nxd_id=85011 |archive-date=June 4, 2013 }}</ref>
On August 1, 2012, in Nashville, Tennessee and on October 1, 2012, in Tucson, Arizona Comcast began tests that impose data caps on area residents. In Nashville exceeding the 300 Gbyte cap mandates a temporary purchase of 50 Gbytes of additional data.<ref>[http://www.webpronews.com/comcast-begins-capping-data-in-the-u-s-2012-09 "Comcast Begins Capping Data in the U.S."] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130313073312/http://www.webpronews.com/comcast-begins-capping-data-in-the-u-s-2012-09 |date=2013-03-13 }}, Sean Patterson, Web Pro News, 19 September 2012</ref>