RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | Another solution Everyone complains about the situation, but it seems to me that few people have considered TANSTAAFL (for you lesser read people, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch").
Unlimited ACCESS is just that, access. That does not say what your limitations are, just that you can get there whenever you feel like it, even 24/7. Unlimited USAGE on the other hand means that you can use it as much as you want, 1 terabyte or 100 terabyte, no matter.
One fair way to solve this entire problem (and it will probably never be done because it impacts several different areas) is to charge a base fee for ACCESS that covers all the costs of doing business that are not directly related to bandwidth costs to the outside plus 'planning for the future' fund requirements and other items a well run business should be saving for. This fee will vary month to month depending on how many people are customers and what broke during the month. Then you are charged for USAGE, again this will vary depending how much the ISP has to pay the next level up for each byte leaving for what we call the internet.
I know this will raise a lot of ire, especially from those who are accustomed to playing the system against its self, but you will also have a better feel for the real cost of the internet, not the average cost that many people think is the actual cost. Many ISPs hold heavily used files (like linux distros) on site that will make your costs lower, so if you have a good ISP your costs can be lower.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
| Problem is that the service was sold, at one time, under the "unlimited" banner. Now that more and more people are on the network, the ISPs found out that their old business model doesn't work anymore. Now, you want to charge more and give out less. Not many consumers are happy about that. Furthermore, companies won't tell the truth as to why they disconnect people because that might cause some not to sign up in the first place.
As for the "per byte" charge, that will never work because, as others have said, ping and spam traffic. Not to mention, how many people are going to like the fact that Microsoft and anti-virus companies will cost them more money when they download their updates? Want to watch a video on you tube? Get out the meter and see how much traffic you download and how much you will pay for it.  |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA | I agree.
How about your ISP charging you per byte for internet usage for their branded VOIP service they are selling as unlimited. Now that would be funny. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to moonpuppy
The "per byte" charge will work just fine, as long as it's done correctly, 99% of customers would never know the difference...and might even see a reduction in their monthly fees (I said done correctly, not done realistically  ) Spam, ping floods, etc., don't really consume a tremendous amount of bandwidth in the grand scheme of things. As for patching and anti-virus updates, you can download whole operating systems for relatively small amounts of data xfer usage, so patching isn't a huge concern. It's the heavy users of P2P and various other high-bandwidth usage tools that consume a majority of the bandwidth...and IMO, they should pay extra for this privilege (it is a privilege, not a right). |
|
 BuriedCaesarIt's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX | Look like a utility fee structure to me...
BTU for Natural Gas
KWH for Electricity
...and eventually GPM for Internet Service
--
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to openbox9
quote:
The "per byte" charge will work just fine, as long as it's done correctly, 99% of customers would never know the difference...and might even see a reduction in their monthly fees (I said done correctly, not done realistically )
Yeah well, you and I both know users certainly wouldn't pay any less.
The problem is they opened the door to the idea that you pay a flat fee with no usage charges. Which ISP is going to be the first to boldly proclaim they now want to implement the "per byte" billing? And which is the first of their competitors to slam them for doing so while sticking with "unlimited" service as a competitive edge?
Shifting to a per byte billing system just strikes me as a marketing impossibility. The bed is made. Upgrade the network. |
|
|
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:As for the "per byte" charge, that will never work because, as others have said, ping and spam traffic. Not to mention, how many people are going to like the fact that Microsoft and anti-virus companies will cost them more money when they download their updates? Want to watch a video on you tube? Get out the meter and see how much traffic you download and how much you will pay for it. I like how some people like to use when an opinion does not match theirs.
I never said it was a perfect solution, just another solution that those who play the system would not like. For 90% of the people (if you believe some of the stats tossed around), it would be more than ideal and maybe save money. (assuming an ideal business environment, which we do not have in most cases). And that is taking into account the garbage you mentioned, unless the statistic givers filtered that out.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Karl Bode
Maybe that's where the brave, and forward looking, ISP does reduce some customers' monthly bills because the ISP is saving money with the new pricing structure (they can still make up the delta with higher tiers or charging heavy users for overages [*cough* cell phone *cough*]). In our world today, cost almost always wins over quality/quantity. If ISP "A" tells me my monthly rate is dropping $10/mth because I don't use my connection for anything more than checking e-mail, but I'm only allowed to xfer 20GB/mth (as a means to keep my business, ISP "A" has already kindly told me that my monthly avg for the last 6 mths is only 5.7GB/mth), I won't be going to ISP "B", which charges $20/mth more for "unlimited" service.
There are ways to win over the sheep consumers and still maintain a profitable business. God forbid we should expect businesses to innovate and provide a valuable service with good consumer support. The US has taken a nosedive in this arena in the last 20 years. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to moonpuppy
A few things I take exception with your post:
1) Because you purchase a subscription doesn't mean they can't change the terms of service. You are equating some sort of "terms for life" clause that simply doesn't exist.
2) The nations LARGEST provider for the longest time hasn't charged more and offered less. The rates, on the contrary, have not raised in years.
3)As for the per byte charge, I agree it won't work but for different reasons. Americans simply won't put up with it. However, saying that it won't work because of ping and spam traffic is wrong and more people should know this. Think cell phones. You are charges for all calls during billable times. Tell me a provider that will give you credit when you get a call from a wrong number. You are responsible for all traffic on your phone, right or wrong. To say "but you have caller ID and can refuse a call".. you can do the same with email. Use web-mail and view headers... choose to download headers first with pop3 or Imap, Or use a service like Spam arrest, a challenge response filter system. There are things you can do to control your traffic.
People in Australia already user bandwidth with responsibility. Have you seen how they buy it? They pay a premium, get slower speeds, and have X amount of traffic with the option to be shaped, or billed for overage. Americans LOVE to gouge and waste and be careless. Roll your eyes at having to watch what you use and I will show you nations that will roll right back at you. (I'm waiting for this response about "we'll, that's them" when people here LOVE to compare other countries to us all the time)
The only reason we're having this discussion is because of the balance between price and competition and the need to build and expand and at what cost and who's willing to pay. No one can expect these companies to simply build and spend while the consumer says "we want the prices dropped"... a simple course on economics and business math will stop this silly discussion.
The one item I still take the most exception to is the charge more and give less. You'll stop spilling the garbage as soon as you take a SHORT stroll through history. Picture it, Pacific Bell, 1998.. 384/384 DSL cost $300 to install, $100 for a modem, a 2 year contract and $79.00 a month. Need I say more? Even with worst plan money wise with speeds of 8mb and rates of $64.00 a month, I'd say your observations is WAY off.. and there is no arguing logic. Even a 6mb line at $54 a month still, today, disputes your argument that people are paying more and getting less. Broadband used to cost about 10 times more today for what you got.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:Maybe that's where the brave, and forward looking, ISP does reduce some customers' monthly bills because the ISP is saving money with the new pricing structure (they can still make up the delta with higher tiers or charging heavy users for overages [*cough* cell phone *cough*]). Maybe in fantasyland but certainly not in today's business climate. The only thinking ISPs do is see how much they can charge for how little they need to provide. |
|
| reply to RayW
said by RayW:said by moonpuppy:As for the "per byte" charge, that will never work because, as others have said, ping and spam traffic. Not to mention, how many people are going to like the fact that Microsoft and anti-virus companies will cost them more money when they download their updates? Want to watch a video on you tube? Get out the meter and see how much traffic you download and how much you will pay for it. I like how some people like to use when an opinion does not match theirs. I never said it was a perfect solution, just another solution that those who play the system would not like. For 90% of the people (if you believe some of the stats tossed around), it would be more than ideal and maybe save money. (assuming an ideal business environment, which we do not have in most cases). And that is taking into account the garbage you mentioned, unless the statistic givers filtered that out. They don't throw out ideas that have major flaws. Quick solutions rarely work. |
|
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:A few things I take exception with your post: 1) Because you purchase a subscription doesn't mean they can't change the terms of service. You are equating some sort of "terms for life" clause that simply doesn't exist. As we have seen happen in Australia, the TOS is being put under more scrutiny and soon, may be a lot tougher for both user AND ISP to disregard. People sign up for one thing and then 6 months later into their one year contract, they get another at the whim of the ISP. Currently with the lack of providers and competition, this can happen. If further down the road the situation changes, then it will become interesting.
said by fiberguy:2) The nations LARGEST provider for the longest time hasn't charged more and offered less. The rates, on the contrary, have not raised in years. There used to be a discount of $10/month for having your own modem. Now, it is down to $3/month or none at all. Speeds were higher (under @Home) and have come down all for the same price if you rented a modem.
said by fiberguy:3)As for the per byte charge, I agree it won't work but for different reasons. Americans simply won't put up with it. However, saying that it won't work because of ping and spam traffic is wrong and more people should know this. Think cell phones. You are charges for all calls during billable times. Tell me a provider that will give you credit when you get a call from a wrong number. You are responsible for all traffic on your phone, right or wrong. To say "but you have caller ID and can refuse a call".. you can do the same with email. Use web-mail and view headers... choose to download headers first with pop3 or Imap, Or use a service like Spam arrest, a challenge response filter system. There are things you can do to control your traffic. Spam is getting more sophisticated day after day until the hard white list is all people will be able to do to stop it from coming through. It is still a burden on the net itself and I am waiting for the day we have a "spam" fee to deal with it.
Verizon Wireless and Nextel were the only 2 I dealt with and both gave me credit for wrong numbers. One carrier used to (not sure which) would not charge you for a call if it was less than 6 seconds (or some other figure.) It is not a big deal now because of the amount of free minutes you get. My first cell phone didn't have caller ID and only 200 off peak minutes (back in 1991.) No where near the amount they give you now.
said by fiberguy:The one item I still take the most exception to is the charge more and give less. You'll stop spilling the garbage as soon as you take a SHORT stroll through history. Picture it, Pacific Bell, 1998.. 384/384 DSL cost $300 to install, $100 for a modem, a 2 year contract and $79.00 a month. Need I say more? Even with worst plan money wise with speeds of 8mb and rates of $64.00 a month, I'd say your observations is WAY off.. and there is no arguing logic. Even a 6mb line at $54 a month still, today, disputes your argument that people are paying more and getting less. Broadband used to cost about 10 times more today for what you got. Verizon DSL 1999.. 1.5Mbps/384kbps $0 to install, $39.99/month, 1 year contract, $100 modem.
Verizon DSL 2006.. 3.0Mbps/768kbps self install kit, free modem $29.99/month, 1 year contract, free modem
Verizon FIOS 2006 5mbps/2mbps, free install, free modem $39.99/month, 1 year contract
Speeds up, price down. |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:They don't throw out ideas that have major flaws. Quick solutions rarely work. I do not who "They" are that you are talking about, but the major flaw that most people see in the proposal (and what I proposed has been around for a while, it was not a 'quickie') that was posted is that it requires accountability on the part of the user, can't have that I suppose.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to moonpuppy
Your post on Verizon... I'm sorry to say that I think you're numbers are a bit off.. OR, that it may have varried in some areas. It was more like $79.99 in my area for an Up to 1.5 line. Qwest rolled out the largest deployment of telco. Pac Bell and other providers were selling the slower 256 speeds in 98 / 99 for MUCH higher rates at $79.00...
I won't disagree with you ONLY because prices were very staggered at the time, but MANY parts of the country with LARGE providers were MUCH higher than what you are claiming.
Even with your 1999 to 2006 comparison, that's still 6 years.. and too, I think you're off by $30.
Still, prices on all the services have dropped. Using equipment fees in the price of the service is not a valid comparison.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to moonpuppy
But they could charge more for those who use more. The market is full of people with too much money and nothing better to do. There is a large market for low cost, relatively low bandwidth, service. DSL providers have proven that. |
|
| reply to RayW
This BS straw man of unlimited access v. unlimited use is just nuts.
The Internet by the nature of how data is sent, requires USE for ACCESS. You can not access a website if you can not download the information from it (the data that makes up the words on the screen, the graphics, the code of the page)
Even if we use the BS "access" isn't use there is not one service provider that has provided unlimited access to the Internet, ever.
To that end I am not saying everyone should have unlimited access, I am saying that they should stop calling it unlimited Internet access and start calling it what it really is...or just advertise the caps, and come up with a tier program to do so. |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | said by AnonProxy:This BS straw man of unlimited access v. unlimited use is just nuts. ........ At one time there was a real difference between the two words and people realized that they meant different things. I know that many people here today do not remember the days when the networks were just coming into being and the lucky people had school accounts and ArpaNet access and the rest of us made do with various other means of access.
Many years ago I had a limited access, unlimited use account. Anytime from 10 PM to 6 AM I could stay connected and do what ever I wanted for a fairly (at the time) cheap rate. If I wanted unlimited access and limited use, I could pay prime rates for 6 AM to 4 PM access AND have my usage metered and charged for during that time (times are approximate, it has been many years).
Just because you and certain corporations seem to think that the difference between the terms "access" and "use" amounts to male bovine droppings, does not mean that there is not a real and important difference.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:Your post on Verizon... I'm sorry to say that I think you're numbers are a bit off.. OR, that it may have varried in some areas. It was more like $79.99 in my area for an Up to 1.5 line. Qwest rolled out the largest deployment of telco. Pac Bell and other providers were selling the slower 256 speeds in 98 / 99 for MUCH higher rates at $79.00... Nope, not off. I had Verizon DSL for 3 months and I know what I paid. I ditched it because they couldn't get speeds above 100kbps and they let me out of the contract for free. Comcast didn't even offer cable modem service in Baltimore City at the time. The prices for 2006 were current as per their website.
said by fiberguy:Still, prices on all the services have dropped. Using equipment fees in the price of the service is not a valid comparison. Well, today Comcast sent me a letter saying they are raising rates for everything. Prices are going up. |
|
| reply to RayW
said by RayW:At one time there was a real difference between the two words and people realized that they meant different things. I know that many people here today do not remember the days when the networks were just coming into being and the lucky people had school accounts and ArpaNet access and the rest of us made do with various other means of access. I remember the days of Compuserve charging per minute, additional charges for certain services and higher charges for higher speeds (300 baud vs. 1200 baud vs. 2400 baud.) AOL did the same thing and still people wouldn't sign up in droves UNTIL the unlimited plan came out.
They went unlimited to sign people up and now they have too many people actually using the services.
said by RayW:Just because you and certain corporations seem to think that the difference between the terms "access" and "use" amounts to male bovine droppings, does not mean that there is not a real and important difference. Advertising (implying) one thing and delivering another is what gets companies in trouble all the time. |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | said by moonpuppy:I remember the days of Compuserve charging per minute, additional charges for certain services and higher charges for higher speeds (300 baud vs. 1200 baud vs. 2400 baud.) AOL did the same thing and still people wouldn't sign up in droves UNTIL the unlimited plan came out. Advertising (implying) one thing and delivering another is what gets companies in trouble all the time. Ah yes, the 'good ole days'.
True, and especially since some refuse to say what the limits are but still hit people with 'excessive' use.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
