dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-02-26 14:32:00: For years we've noted how broadband ISPs have tried to pass off the idea of usage caps as one of "fairness," with it "only being right" that heavier users should pay more money. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next

firedrakes

join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

6 recommendations

nope its greed on verizon part

its nothing more then greed hear and not certain people downloading

DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1

8 recommendations

Heavy users subsidize the users who do not use their connection

SO heavy users must pay more eh?

How about the fact these so called heavy users are using their connection to the fullest extent and subsidizing the users who barley use their connections or use it just to chat on Facebook or look at cute animal pictures


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

4 recommendations

said by DanteX:

....subsidizing the users who barley use their connections or use it just to chat on Facebook or look at cute animal pictures

Neutrallity says "fuzzy animals and facebook" are just as important as any other use, even if they use less then "the fullest extent" of the connection.


buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20
Limestone, ME

They Want...

If they want this they need to drop that high monthly fee.

Like electricity you pay for what you use, which means these light users should be paying less.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
The electric company has base charges that will run you anywhere from $4/mo to $20/mo, depending on market, even if you turn off the master breaker and use zero kilowatt hours. Around these parts the connection fee is $16.50/mo for electric and $18/mo for natural gas.

There's also state assessed fees that you'll pay, again, even if you use zero kWh/therm on your connection.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

3 recommendations

reply to DanteX

Re: Heavy users subsidize the users who do not use their connection

said by DanteX:

How about the fact these so called heavy users are using their connection to the fullest extent and subsidizing the users who barley use their connections or use it just to chat on Facebook or look at cute animal pictures

You got four recs for this gibberish?

Which user do you think requires a greater infrastructure investment on the part of the ISP? The one who primarily browses the web (i.e., Facebook and cute animal photos) or the one who is trying to use his internet connection as a video delivery system?

Hint: The user with the higher average bitrate requires more infrastructure, from peering points (comparatively inexpensive, but still a non-zero cost) to the last mile (comparatively expensive).


availname

@rr.com

1 recommendation

reply to Crookshanks

Re: They Want...

Why is it $16.50 to connect to ELECTRICITY and 2-5X that "just to connect" to the Internet.

Even with the fees and "connect" fee, the starting point should be significantly lower than most current Internet service plans. Not to mention, how exactly does one sell "well it WAS connect and unlimited for this price, but what we meant all those years was it's connect only and NOW you'll pay reasonable, per MB/GB rates each month."

It's reasonable to assume the low end users would see a decrease in price. Especially on slower connections (granted one could argue such users would be even better off seeking one of the rare dialup plans still out there for their limited usage).

O1OOO1O

join:2005-12-23
Lewisville, TX

Wrong group

I read those comments as applying to the likes of Netflix, not end users.


Mr Guy

@charter.com
reply to availname

Re: They Want...

said by availname :

It's reasonable to assume the low end users would see a decrease in price. Especially on slower connections (granted one could argue such users would be even better off seeking one of the rare dialup plans still out there for their limited usage).

If you ran a business would you just accept LESS money? We are capitalist society not communist. An ISP is not going to go from getting $50 a month from millions of customers to getting $20 a month. They wouldn't stay in business long and if they did stay in business don't expect them to spend much money on improvements in the future.


PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
reply to Crookshanks

Re: Heavy users subsidize the users who do not use their connection

The same last mile being run to your neighbor who uses all of 20GB/mo is the same last mile run to you when you use 200GB/mo.


availname

@rr.com
reply to Mr Guy

Re: They Want...

I get that. That's obvious. But that's not what they're talking about with these things. They're suggesting their current offerings are basically at the absolute lowest they could possibly be and poor ol "grandma" is gonna have to pay more because others are using the connection too much. Have you seen their profit margins?

Call me crazy, but telling the truth wouldn't hurt anything. And yea, I know. It's business and about makin money, so just blow smoke up everybody's rear end and underdeliver so the public can continue to enjoy complaining about everything!

bsangs

join:2002-08-21
Montclair, NJ
kudos:1

Now you know how the 1 percent feels

What's the problem? This is no different than what our government/country expects from its top earners when it comes to taxes - and the 99 percent don't seem to have many issues with that line of thinking. Sounds like fair play to me.

clone

join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US

6 recommendations

reply to Mr Guy

Re: They Want...

Oh no, not this shit again?!

I realize it causes cognitive dissonance in people who are rabidly anti-consumer corporatists, but there is no God given right for corporations to take however much money they feel like out of my wallet. You can only make as much money as the market says you can. If people think $50 a month is a fair price to pay for unlimited, unthrottled internet, and your company wants to change that into $50 for limited, throttled, or capped internet you should expect consumers to reject that.

If you want to charge "by the pound", expect that you'll make less money off of the people who only buy a few ounces. Except in this case, it's the people who push these networks to their limits who actually drive innovation and improvements. If everyone was content just sending cat pics on Facebook or chatting on IM, we'd all still be using 768/128 DSL.

The reason the networks are so robust and capable today is because there was demand for the real "heavy-hitters" in the usage department. Either the ISPs can meet the demand or consumers can take their business elsewhere. That's the way it's always been. I know plenty of people who are more than content using Frontier 3/.768 DSL for $25 or $35 a month. I prefer to pay $60 or $70 for my 30/6 cable. I pay more, I get more. But if you tell me I should pay for 30/6 cable and use it like it's 3/.768 DSL, I'll tell you where to shove it.

You don't have a right to my money, you need to provide value to me to earn it. That's what capitalism is, not your corporatist entitlement complex that all the peons money should be in the hands of the almighty company.

ptbarnett

join:2002-09-30
Lewisville, TX

I have no problems with usage-based pricing....

I pay for the amount of water, electricity, and gas that I use. But, all of those are small incremental amounts, with some relationship to the incremental cost to provide them. I also pay a fixed cost to each provider to maintain the infrastructure.

However, the incremental cost of bandwidth is very small. So, if Verizon wants to switch to usage-based pricing, then I expect it to be revenue-neutral: i.e. it's not an excuse to boost the average monthly fee under the guise of "fairness".

I expect the monthly fixed cost to be reduced to something like my electric and gas bill ($10-15/month), and the incremental usage cost to be very small (on the order of 1 cent/gigabyte, which is $10/terabyte).

But, I don't expect Verizon to do that, just like I don't expect them to ever offer ala carte subscription to their TV channels. They are already collecting too much money for services I never use -- although in fairness, a lot of that is going to the producers of channels I never watch.


jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Avon, OH

heavy users are paying more

The heavy users are paying for the more expensive tiers. Those are the people that paid more all long for the higher tiers that got the isp's where they are now. The enhanced use of the internet is already paying them more money. Or we could all be on aol dialup for 9.99 a month for unlimited.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to O1OOO1O

Re: Wrong group

+1 I'm with you. This is the 1800 number for the network.

As for the FiOS network, it was built to scale and docsis 3+ does also. Transit costs are practically nil, so these guys are essentially trying to recoup what is being commoditized in the transit space and cloud hosting (Terremark in Verizon case), and they will go kicking and dragging. Since the operators are gatekeepers, they are using that position to "selectively" offer Verizon-EZ-Pass (in my neck of the woods) versus waiting in line for a ticket for say CDN like level2, Cogent, AWS, etc. Once you get on the Thruway, its the same road, but it's HOW you get on the road that matters. Do you wait in line with all the other stiffs, or do you go sailing through...THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. And since the Thruway Authority (operator) is in no rush to build more booths, they let the stiffs wait in line, unless they want one of the new fancy lanes (which cost marginally less BTW) where you can drive through at 60MPH...

And this is why net neutrality is being shredded until it gets regulated like say electricity, and then cost goes up because of said regulation. And the baby Bells get broken up again... Rinse and repeat or in the case of Lowell "histrionics" .


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2

4 recommendations

reply to PapaMidnight

Re: Heavy users subsidize the users who do not use their connection

Don't waste your time trying to explain this to him. We've all tried.

ptbarnett

join:2002-09-30
Lewisville, TX

2 recommendations

reply to Mr Guy

Re: They Want...

said by Mr Guy :

If you ran a business would you just accept LESS money?

I don't expect Verizon to accept less money. What I expect is for them to set their usage-based pricing so they get the same amount of revenue from monthly fees as the current fixed monthly pricing.

That means the average monthly bill would be the same -- Heavy users would pay more, and light users would pay less. If the heavy users really are the ones driving costs, then I would expect the median bill to be less, as it would distribute those costs onto heavy users.

But as the original article notes, it's usually: light users pay the same as before, moderate users pay more, and heavy users pay a lot more. That's not redistributing costs -- that's increasing revenue under the guise of "fairness".

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Mr Guy
Your implication that they couldnt stay afloat charging half what they charge now for ALL users and then surcharges for heavy users is quite false.

Also, your implication that caps would foster investment into the network is also false and is actually quite contrary to what would more than likely happen. Why would your company (Charter) invest in more infrastructure when they can simply raise the rates and per GB charges to discourage it's use thus making those very investments unneeded? It is a double-edged sword.


newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·Comcast

Oh really ... ?

Click for full size

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to ptbarnett

Re: I have no problems with usage-based pricing....

I would like to see a cost comparison of the electrical grid vs an ISP network.

I have read in more than one place over the years that it cost way more to get the electrical grid up and running and continue to run than it does an ISP yet it cost the consumer so much more on the ISP side. I wish I could remember one of those articles, but I am sure someone here saw the same and will chime in.

63475675

join:2014-01-06

The greedy providers keep moving the target....

....to grab as much cash as possible.

So, big corporation, if this is what you want then stop charging me a fortune when I use a small amount of service I must subscribe to (say I use 15%) while the other guy uses nearly 120% and yet we BOTH PAY THE SAME PRICE!

Lets go brASS tacks where is my wired usage plan at a low base rate?

F'ing hypocrites = big ISP providers


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to buzz_4_20

Re: They Want...

said by buzz_4_20:

they need to drop that high monthly fee.

It may reach that point in 10 or 15 years, when every home is covered and it is considered a MANDATORY utility like electric or water is in MOST places, the base cost can then be more evenly distributed across the user base.
As it is currently an OPTIONAL service, with uneven/competing technologies, it is up to the provider to determine the best way to package and charge in order to recover not just the base costs but the extra cost brought on by non-standard usage.

said by buzz_4_20:

Like electricity you pay for what you use, which means these light users should be paying less.

I really doubt you'll see bills going down due to every increasing volume, you may see more plans where really low volume users rates don't increase...IF their volume remains low, However because so much of the cost is tied to building the initial plant EVERYWHERE, unlike electricity or water there is little incentive for providers to force conservation, just to slow the growth rate to match a practical plant expansion.


MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

Fair pricing

So if you want to talk about heavy and lite users, HOW ABOUT FAIR USAGE BASED PRICING?!
How about you greedy bastards charge your users PER MEGA/GIGABYTE TRANSFERED? Not those fucked up "buckets" like you do on cellular. No! Real usage based pricing like electricity, or Amazon AWS services.
$0.10/gigabyte sounds fair. Lite users will pay less because they use less. Heavy users will pay more because they actually use more.
None of those fucking caps or throttles or buckets or any other inventive bullshit to scam the consumer!
We pay you what we actually use!
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Special hardware

I think what they want to do is make Netflix users get a special modem/gateway (that you have to rent from your ISP) so they can deliver Netflix over dedicated frequencies on their network as opposed to consume their network capacity. On a cable system, that could be a dedicated DOCSIS/QAM channel. Under this they could separate streaming video (which consumes most of their system resources) from the rest of their data and those of us that only occasionally stream (YouTube) can enjoy the internet. It would also enhance the Netflix experience as it has it's dedicated channel and doesn't commingle with other traffic on that network.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.


Xioden
Premium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1
reply to Skippy25

Re: I have no problems with usage-based pricing....

Just some quick napkin math...

To run FTTH along every single road and to every single household in the US would cost somewhere around $150 billion USD (this includes fiber and equipment).

A 1GW coal power plant runs about $1 billion USD. There is currently around 300GW worth of coal power plants active in the US. They produce about a third of the energy used.

So not including infrastructure, just a third of the power generation would cost twice what it would cost to do nation-wide FTTH.

The biggest thing I imagine is that most power companies don't have shareholders breathing down their neck about getting a double digit ROI within a quarter of investing.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to clone

Re: They Want...

said by clone:

I realize it causes cognitive dissonance in people who are rabidly anti-consumer corporatists, but there is no God given right for corporations to take however much money they feel like out of my wallet.

You also have no god given (or constitutional ) right to internet service at less then what the market will bear.
You are entitled to take your business elsewhere.

wkm001

join:2009-12-14

Ok...

I honestly don't have an issue with this title. ISPs oversell service, they all do it. How much you can oversell it determines your profit. Heavy users shrink this ratio. While I consider myself a power user, I am NOT a heavy user.

The problem is, no national ISPs are willing to define a heavy user. Comcast has all but suspended their 250 gigabyte cap. Usage counters have been slow, never rolled out, or inaccurate.

We are all potential heavy users now. Netflix is so cheap! Internet traffic of the past was extremely bursty. Now it is easy for users to have long sessions of constant use. Take season 2 of House of Cards. I don't see this new era of usage going away unless ISPs start acting anti competitively.

Arty50
Premium
join:2003-10-04

1 recommendation

reply to tshirt

Re: They Want...

said by tshirt:

You also have no god given (or constitutional ) right to internet service at less then what the market will bear.
You are entitled to take your business elsewhere.

Yeah, because it's so easy for me to switch to another provider that offers anywhere near 30MB up. Oh wait, the last 3 cities I lived in only had one ISP that could do so. Your statement assumes the most people have a choice. The real world says that most people don't.


Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:24
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Frontier Communi..

4 recommendations

reply to DanteX

Re: Heavy users subsidize the users who do not use their connection

"Heavier" users do tend to buy faster connections at a higher cost, as another consideration. Those who don't use their connections for anything but e-mail but buy fast tiers? Well they're subsidizing everyone else too. It all comes full circle regardless of the amount of usage.