baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
1 edit | Metered billing
I dont think its a bad idea, just as long as they do it fairly (decreased prices for those who use less?) and have a REASONABLE tiered system. They would need a bandwidth meter freely available, and clear and consice overage fees
Also, a 40gb cap that TW was imposing was really low, Comcasts was much more reasonable at 250gb; ATT is in the middle at 140gb(i believe it was close to that)
As long as they review it year to year and realize that usage will increase, they should raise the cap annually. |
|
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs: | only in uncompetitive markets
funny how cable companies can offer uncapped service in competitive markets |
|
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | I live in Detroit Metro with Comcast's 250GB cap, and here we have ATT Uverse, WOW Cable, and Comcast.
TW was doing it a little unfairly. |
|
JoeIac
Premium
join:2009-03-02
MA
clubs:
·Time Warner Cable
·Comcast
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Dreamhost
| Not a Good idea
I think that if cable companies can prove that a user is using an excessive amount of bandwidth, then they should have some leeway to ask them to upgrade tiers or drop them, but the idea of paying for internet on a per-gigabyte basis is terrible!
Cable companies need to start thinking more towards the future, and between FiOS and Docsys 3 they're going to need a new plan, and fast.
But caps are not the answer, upgraded networks are the answer.
IMHO, if users are really degrading your networks so much, and you're still posting huge profits, then you're doing something wrong. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to baineschile
Re: Metered billing
said by baineschile  :Also, a 40gb cap that TW was imposing was really low, Comcasts was much more reasonable at 250gb. I find myself seeing that Comcast's approach, with a relatively high limit and throttling of people who go over to be more reasonable and fair than any system that charges overages and has a low cap. At least Comcast can legitimately argue that "it is all about punishing the hogs."
Such an approach also leaves Comcast an incentive to continue network upgrades. TW's approach on the other hand discourages improvements because there is now an incentive to collect more in overages instead of spend money on improvements.
If FIOS goes to caps, and I think they will because Verizon isn't browbeating the cable companies over the caps issue, then this will be a lost cause.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
| reply to baineschile
Re: only in uncompetitive markets
Yes, well I like many have only one choice, the local cable company Cox.
While they have been great thus far, having only "soft caps".
Many people use 500+ GB's per month and have never heard a peep.
Funny thing is cox has no caps on their service in Lafayette, where fiber is now being offered. |
|
ExitWound
Porsche Snob
join:2001-12-13
State College, PA
·Vonage
| Conflicting Messages
So when I see these types of reports, I get conflicting messages. I have a cable company offering me services in which I have to pay to receive them. But if I use their services, I risk using it too much, and therefore am penalized by using the service they're offering me. How can they tell me to upgrade to HD, use onDemand, use their phone services, and then cap me on the amount I can use it? As a customer, I would *NEVER* subscribe to services such as those.
--
»www.theexitwound.com |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to baineschile
Re: Metered billing
said by baineschile :I dont think its a bad idea, just as long as they do it fairly (decreased prices for those who use less?) and have a REASONABLE tiered system. They would need a bandwidth meter freely available, and clear and consice overage fees Also, a 40gb cap that TW was imposing was really low, Comcasts was much more reasonable at 250gb; ATT is in the middle at 140gb(i believe it was close to that) As long as they review it year to year and realize that usage will increase, they should raise the cap annually. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
First off, I seriously doubt any of the cable companies are going to lower base rates. That would cut into their profits and while those who consume more would pay more, those who consume less would pay less. As the cable companies have said, it is only that 1% that hogs up everything so while you have 1% paying more, you have 99% paying the same or less.
The 40GB cap is useless. You can go over that easily even with legal means like Youtube, MS updates, gaming, etc.
They only "review" that they will do would be how to squeeze that much more out of people. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
·VOIPo
1 edit | reply to baineschile
If metered billing is done right it can work, but TWs way is(was?) too crazy. Why do they insist metered is the future? FiOS can go un-capped(but if what I heard it ture, verizion owns a I forget what its called but when you up-load/down-load on their network they actually make money from that, IDK if it is true or not), so can cable vision.
If they charged us 2x per GB what it costs them I would be ok with it. Say they pay 10 cents per GB ad 5 cents to get it to us, we would pay 30 cents per GB.
And internet is probably verizons main source of income, so y would they make their main source of income look bad/worse? |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to pnh102
I agree. |
|
TwoCpus4me
join:2003-10-16
| It sucks
Who is going to pay for all the bandwidth for the flash advertising. Leave your computer sitting on a webpage, it refreshes itself constantly and downloads flash advertisements.
Most users have no control of that, short of not going to webpages, which is the end result of metered billing. |
|
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to ExitWound
Re: Conflicting Messages
The same goes true with cellular phones. You can order 500 texts per month, at 501, you are getting overages |
|
Cherokee
@csfb.com
| reply to baineschile
Re: Metered billing
said by baineschile :I dont think its a bad idea, just as long as they do it fairly (decreased prices for those who use less?) and have a REASONABLE tiered system. THEY ARE TRYING TO METER AND UNLIMITED RESOURCE. WHAT ON EARTH DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS???
Would you prefer the start charging us all for our average oxygen consumption in order to better regulate the environment? It's an UNLIMITED resource. There is NO need to meter it. There is not some company out there hoarding up all of the bits and bytes on the internet.
Not to mention, as has been said time and time again, costs are dropping, user base is increasing and profits are increasing. A company's responsibility to its self is to take it's profit and REINVEST in infrastructure in order to maintain its business model. If it does not do this, then it has no one to blame but itself. |
|
HiDesert
join:2008-08-17
| reply to ExitWound
Re: Conflicting Messages
said by ExitWound :How can they tell me to upgrade to HD, use onDemand, use their phone services, and then cap me on the amount I can use it? As a customer, I would *NEVER* subscribe to services such as those. TV and phone services should be separate and unlimited to your HSI. IMO, the main purpose of capping the HSI end is to protect their own content on the PPV, TV end of it. Especially with companies like Warner who have allot invested in the content end of it. They won't admit it but its blatantly obvious. I think moving forward they also would like to put a hold on upgrades just so they can milk the cow and max returns for the investors. What this will get them at some point is the whole thing thrown into the courts for net neutrality violations. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
Re: Metered billing
I still don't buy the need. Ther more they talk about it the more they get the foot in the door. Per byte billing does nothing for congestion, it only gives them additional revenues from which the carriers MIGHT take a portion of and upgrade.
There has been no data supplied by any carrier that coild buttress their argument. Furthermore, TW preeeded this mess by stating they might only surgically upgrade in select markets.
Its time this discussion turned to regulating broadband as a utility. This way the cablecos would have to have to prove their claims before some sort of Public Utilities commission for increases would be approved. I'm just tossing out ideas...if you've got one better I'm all ears.. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
·VOIPo
| I too think there is some regulation needed. If they want to meter bill you so they can make more money they can with no reason they do own their internet. but when they lie that is different they are doing it for the same reason whether they lie or not, so why not not lie? |
|
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
| Rollover!
Metered billing is fine, if you have some sort of rollover system!
Think about it, if you buy 5 apples you aren't restricted to only eat the apples you eat within the next day.
If you buy 20 GBs and only use 5 GB this month, 15 should rollover to the next month. Otherwise, you are paying the price of 20 GBs when you have only used 5 GB. I believe this is the only fair model for both consumers and businesses because people's usage per month varies and to make them pay for something they don't use I would say is illegal.
You paid for 20 GBs of service, you should be able to use 20 GBs of service....regardless of when you use it.
Providers have dug their own grave. Who lives in the Homer Glen area I'd be willing to buy a T1 (or even a T3) to provide unmetered wireless (wired?) to this area. Anyone? It only costs $400/month, and at 10 people paying about $40/month for access I think its worth it to get away from this cap BS. In fact I think I would even pitch in $50 which means 9 people/T1. Of course, any illegal activity means instant disconnect and a fine to get back on  . |
|
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to baineschile
Re: Metered billing
said by baineschile :I dont think its a bad idea, just as long as they do it fairly (decreased prices for those who use less?) and have a REASONABLE tiered system. They would need a bandwidth meter freely available, and clear and consice overage fees Also, a 40gb cap that TW was imposing was really low, Comcasts was much more reasonable at 250gb; ATT is in the middle at 140gb(i believe it was close to that) As long as they review it year to year and realize that usage will increase, they should raise the cap annually. I think it's great too, you see, from now on, I'll add up all the bandwidth from Comcast users that visit my websites and send Comcast an "overage" bill for too many of their users. I'll set the cap at a generous 10MB a month and for ever byte over that limit, I'll charge a very generous $1 / Megabyte.
I'm just trying to cap the bandwidth hogs that use Comcast so that the service remains fast and to help curtail those pirates, Arrrg!! 
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data |
|
dobby10
Premium
join:2000-12-13
Whippany, NJ
clubs:
| Cable, the only industy that goes backwards!
A brief communications history...
You used to have to pay for each call you made from your home phone..... Not Today!
You used to be given a limited number of cell minutes and have to pay crazy overages if you went over... Today - Unlimited Plans Galore!
You used to have unlimited Internet... The future - you pay for how much you use???
I love how they make NO sense! |
|
HiDesert
join:2008-08-17
| reply to S_engineer
Re: Metered billing
said by S_engineer :This way the cablecos would have to have to prove their claims before some sort of Public Utilities commission for increases would be approved. I'm just tossing out ideas...if you've got one better I'm all ears.. I agree since at this time its all based that their claims are true but there is no real numbers to back it up. Obviously, companies like Warner have huge motivations to lie and fudge the truth about congestion, upgrades etc.. If what they say is true then they should have no issues for an independent team to study their network issues... but watch how they would fight any action like that.. they would spend millions to keep their networks a secret.
I wish Warner's plan had gone through since it was indeed nuts. It would have started a firestorm of class action lawsuits from large companies like netflix for net neutrality violations. Warner knew this and pulled back.. but they are looking for a different angle. If companies take the comcast approach they will keep the regulators off their backs. If they take a crazy approach then the regulators will step in and it will be their own faults at that point. |
|
