| Tiered pricing works Like right now I have 5/1 to get 10/1 I have to pay more... but this paying per byte stuff is for the birds... |
|
 winsyrstrifeRiver City BouncePremium
join:2002-04-30
Brooklyn, NY | So lets see if I got this right -80% customers use around 5 GB / month (example)
-New broadband pricing model tier will be $40 / 2GB per month
-Overage is $10 / GB |
|
 Duramax08Win8 sucksPremium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX
 ·Millenicom
·Cricket Broadband
2 edits | That picture of him ACCURATE ACCURATE ACCURATE ACCURATE ACCURATE
Has DOUCHEBAG written all over it.
ACCURATE ACCURATE ACCURATE ACCURATE ACCURATE |
|
| The biggest issue is... I think the one thing that will stop telecoms and cable providers from doing this in the US is the amount and quality of competition. While most people say there is limited competition, the majority of Americans actually have multiple choices for internet: Satellite, DSL, Cable, or Wireless. An example is my area. Service Electric has a 100 GB cap. They don't dare reduce that cap because CenturyLink, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and multiple satellite providers all service my address. The only thing that keeps me using Service Electric is the high speeds. If SE lowered the cap to the point where it interfered with my heavy usage (netflix, xbox, steam, youtube, 80-90 gb/mo) then I'd jump to CenturyLink.
Once clear gets it's network rolled out and the cell providers roll out their 4g network things will really start to get interesting. |
|
|
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | UBP can be fair You start with a system where the current revenue stream is maintained by the pricing model. And as users drop TV subscriptions and move to broadband video, the lost TV revenue is replaced by higher broadband usage fees as users eat more and more Internet bytes.
All companies want revenue growth and not mere stand still revenues. But this can be obtained as new products use broadband delivery and not just TV channels converted to Internet video. Things like tele-presence; medical monitoring; more video conferencing; etc.
In any case, a dozen accountants and a few weeks of analysis could easily create a pricing model that will reward light users and make heavy users carry more of the cost burden than they do now. And these models can even be structured such that it can forecast and adjust for the fact that heavy users will find a way to reduce their usage due to it costing them more per month. |
|
| They need the same meter laws that water and power fall unde They need the same meter laws that water and power fall under.
But as for caps will ATT make the Directv VOD data cap free?
As ATT sells Directv. |
|
| reply to Linklist
Re: UBP can be fair Except for a company like Comcast which put themselves in a hole by establishing an incredibly high 250GB cap. For UBP to be effective against heavy users, they really need to drop it down to 80~100GB, something which is now impossible to do without a PR nightmare.
At this point, I'd rather see them just go with modest annual rate increases and benefit on the side from any hardware/bandwidth price drops. And yes, I am a both a Comcast user and shareholder. |
|
| reply to Linklist
Can be fair, and WILL be fair are not the same.
Fair implies an mutually agreed upon price. The ONLY thing that maters to them is to increase Profit.
If they can get you to pay more while providing the same or less service, they will. This gives them the perfect opportunity to screw over their customer base for several years, until laws get introduced to stop them. |
|
 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to Duramax08
Re: That picture of him or a Dip $ hit
--
BlooMe |
|
rob316
join:2005-10-17
Carteret, NJ | F***Head Not this Fu**Head again, spewing bs as always. |
|
| market balances I DARE ANY CABLE COMPANY to try this crap & see what happens!
Comcast had to tuck tail with a soft cap. This is NOT Canada or other places where consumers are going to stand for whatever corporations want, and like it. |
|
 bionicRodFunkier than a mohair disco ball.Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state
kudos:1 | reply to Eek2121
Re: The biggest issue is... That only works if the other companies don't jump on the overage bandwagon, which they probably will. Also, satellite internet is not a real choice, and wireless is iffy. Here we only have the cable company and the phone company that can offer any real speed, and it's like that for almost all of the country. |
|
Alky
join:2001-08-12
Cleveland, OH | reply to Joe12345678
Re: They need the same meter laws that water and power fall unde Well, if they do that, then wouldn't they fall under the same regulations as water and power, and then come under the scrutiny of various public utilities commissions? They think they have it so tough now, wait until every move they make is put under a microscope. |
|
 Frankis chillingPremium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere | reply to Linklist
Re: UBP can be fair No it cant....
The only way usage based billing would be fair would be if they charged lite users (ie: grandma who checks her email once a week) something like $2 a month which is something THAT WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida  |
|
 MurdocPremium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI | I just went back with cable internet. I will go with a local wireless ISP that costs more upfront and dump these greedy goofs if they keep on pushing more. |
|
| Senior Analyst? Bernstein Research senior analyst Craig Moffett. This idiot is the senior analyst?? How good is this Bernstein Research company? Companies always have idiots making decisions. They go and look for someone that took certain classes in college and got extremely good grades. Problem is the people that made these classes were rich idiots that don't take consumers into mind. Always college, don't look and see what their real life was like. Usually some kid that had a golden spoon in his mouth all his life. Willing to bet the idiot Craig Moffett had a golden spoon,fork and knife in his mouth all his life. |
|
| reply to JasonOD
Re: UBP can be fair 250 isn't incredibly high, real bandwidth hogs can use 1 -3 TB a month on a fast cable connection, trust me comcast's 250gb cap is more than low effect to effect bandwidth hogs. |
|
Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
 ·Comcast
| Deal with it The Cable & Phone companies to to understand exactly what we all think of them and deal with it.
YOU ARE A DUMB PIPE. ---- Period.
We do not want or need you for TV or Phone. We also will not pay more, just to use the basic Internet needs (e-mail, gaming, video, search).
If they truly start a pay as you use service... Yes, usage will go down a little. But so will their income as it just means customers will use less. If they combine a monthly fee with usage... Customers will revolt.
--
HP Pavilion a6750f (tweaked)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 * Mac OS Snow Leopard
»www.sociallyuncensored.com |
|
 kpfx
join:2005-10-28
San Antonio, TX | reply to Linklist
Re: UBP can be fair Agreed. It can be fair and I would actually welcome it if done properly. We do pay for gas, electricity, water, and all our other utilities based on our usage. Plus under a UBP model we wouldn't have to mess with "lite" "basic" "standard" "turbo" "extreme" speed tiers.... everything could just run at full throttle and the ISPs could compete on cost-per-gig.
Sadly these companies haven't given the public much confidence because the "experiments" they've run don't pass the financial smell test (I'm looking at you Time Warner).
But if I paid $10 for a "connection" and something like $0.10 per GB then that would actually put me close to what I already pay for. Even if I decide to take the plunge and become a cord cutter and do nothing but Netflix streaming, I'd still come out ahead in savings and the ISP would still get their fair share for my increased usage.
And heck, if I was buying all my video separately directly from the source (i.e. Netflix/Hulu/ESPN3/etc)... then Comcast or Time Warner would come out smelling like roses by no longer being involved in the nasty carriage-disputes we've been seeing lately. |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·KCH Cable
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| I smell a rat Is there REALLY any "subsidy" going on with cable internet vs. TV?
I have yet to see any facts proving it... Obviously infrastructure costs may have some crossover, but the basics have to have been paid off several times over by now (by and large).
...What about all the wiretapping infrastructure? Who pays for all that?
This is crap. Karl is so right. The "average" user (not 'power' user) would realistically only need a ~$5/mo. plan (screw it, let's even say $20), and they'd still be making money (they ARE still making money, lots of it!).
Hell, in some areas, 1.5Mbps DSL is around $60, PLUS phone service costs. This is already an insane price, and the use of that line ought to be flat out unlimited.
My cable bill has changed very little in years, but speed has increased. Could they not have kept "speed" at 2003 speeds (~3-4Mbps) if this were such a concern?????
...On that note, DSL pretty much HAS stayed the same for a majority of subscribers, if only because they CANNOT get faster service in so many areas...
I'd rather pay for tons of usability of my connection than a few more megabits of speed. It does no good to have extra bandwidth if its available usage shrinks (time, or Gigabytes, whichever).
This whole things smells dirty.
Possible that they're also looking for ways to pay themselves off for investing in all the wiretapping, eavesdropping, etc. that they had to do - but that's just a wild guess since nobody else has brought it up yet...
If that's even remotely the case, it makes this all the worse. |
|
