how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
155 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 JeffreyWilpon please sell the MetsPremium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
 ·Vonage
 ·Optimum Online
| Conceptually vs. Reality Conceptially, the idea of billing-by-the-byte might make some sense. In the real world, I'm not sure it's possible.
What about my 3 Vonage lines that I have? How will that be counted? What about the spam I receive - that I didn't ask for or - how will that be counted? Xbox live, and other gaming systems? Telecommuters?
There is going to have to be a better way, because if they started billing by the byte tomorrow, I would severely curtail my usage, or switch to a provider that did not have a similar pricing structure.
Seems to me that a bill by the byte system might harm innovation in the long run.
--
And so castles made of sand, slip into the sea, eventually.
I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing. | |
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Charter
| said by Jeffrey:What about my 3 Vonage lines that I have? How will that be counted? What about the spam I receive - that I didn't ask for or - how will that be counted? Xbox live, and other gaming systems? Telecommuters? It is unlikely that ISPs will bill / byte, but instead have billing tiers (top 5%). Getting into the higher billing rates won't be caused by Xbox gaming, Vonage, as you suggest, but will be caused by Xbox video on demand, heavy P2P (more than most people have for disk space), etc. Very few people will likely fall into these higher tiers.
said by Jeffrey:There is going to have to be a better way, because if they started billing by the byte tomorrow, I would severely curtail my usage, or switch to a provider that did not have a similar pricing structure. That is the point, but again few fall into this category and you may not even come close. If all the top 5% of users "moved providers" eventually that "provider" would fail without some way to recoup the cost of carrying the bandwidth.
said by Jeffrey:Seems to me that a bill by the byte system might harm innovation in the long run. Think hybrid cars, florescent dimmable bulbs, low flow toilets, high efficiency furnaces, mpeg4, etc. | |
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to Jeffrey
said by Jeffrey:Conceptially, the idea of billing-by-the-byte might make some sense. In the real world, I'm not sure it's possible. What about my 3 Vonage lines that I have? How will that be counted? What about the spam I receive - that I didn't ask for or - how will that be counted? You'd pay for it, and then petition the ISP to sue the pants off of the people who sent it to you. That way the criminals would REALLY be running for cover. That would be a BETTER situation.
Xbox live, and other gaming systems? Telecommuters? They would pay per use, too. Why wouldn't they?
There is going to have to be a better way, because if they started billing by the byte tomorrow, I would severely curtail my usage, or switch to a provider that did not have a similar pricing structure. If your use was more than you could afford, you would. Obviously, the international ISP connection system is the total cost for everyone, and you pay your portion of that, and usage-based pricing would mean you pay for your proportional use of that. Perhaps your usage would not be so much that your costs would be unaffordable.
Of course, you would benefit from not overusing.
Seems to me that a bill by the byte system might harm innovation in the long run. I caution both sides of this argument: (A) don't assume that charges would be too high in cost-based usage. Your VPN and your games could be quite reasonable in charge. (B) don't charge anything other than cost-based usage. I.e., don't subsidize one user with another (beyond noise level), nor seek unruly margins (e.g., more than 20%).
This is where multiple providers competing makes sense; some might deliver bits at a lower cost than others, and therefore in cost-conscious applications, would win. Other applications might not be bit-heavy.
I don't see how true cost-based usage charging would deter innovation. To the contrary:
(A) It would allow unfettered heavy-use to happen according to how much cost(s) the user(s) could bear in the market, rather than inflated blame-driven "criminal vs. ISP gouging" throttling models vs. "95% sliver only" currently used;
(B) It would demand innovation for being bit-efficient, since there would be a natural incentive for people to buy software that had the best bit-to-quality ratio.
Once again, the typical knee-jerk reactions you espouse are opposite of what seems to be what the truth is.
THIS IS ALL PREDICATED UPON COST-BASED USAGE CHARGES. Gouging usage charges that are way-above cost based are of course not considered in my considerations. | | |
|
JeffreyWilpon please sell the MetsPremium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Vonage
·Optimum Online
2 edits | said by Ulmo:Once again, the typical knee-jerk reactions you espouse are opposite of what seems to be what the truth is. THIS IS ALL PREDICATED UPON COST-BASED USAGE CHARGES. Gouging usage charges that are way-above cost based are of course not considered in my considerations. You have some good ideas and opinions. That being said, none of what I had typed above was knee-jerk reactions. Per byte billing has been floating around for quite a while, and any reaction I've had certainly was not knee jerk, as you so kindly put it.
I think it's going to hurt overall innovation, and it's always easier to charge the customer more instead of companies reinventing how they do business. Companies - like Netflix - want to change the way they deliver movies. Downloadable, instead of sending discs through the mail. Per-byte billing might kill that entire idea. I'd love to download Netflix movies to my PC directly, but not at a per-byte billing.
And for me, it doesn't so much come down to cost as opposed to value I get from it. Cost is irrelevant, my value for my $ is what I'm concerned with. If something costs me $200 a month, but it's well worth it, then I can accept that. I can not accept something that nickle and dimes me when I pay a fair monthly fee for it. I'll pay good money for something that I need, and use - up to a point. When it reaches that point, I will find alternatives, or forgo it completely.
Of course I'd love to evaluate what companies would consider to be acceptable per-byte policies. How much for how much money.
And you really think anyone at all is going to get the ISPs to sue the people who sent the spam? Can I come live in your delusional world please? 
Edit: Here's a post of yours from Verizon's symmetrical Fios.
»Re: Why?
Wave bye-bye to that "edge", with per-byte billing. 
--
And so castles made of sand, slip into the sea, eventually.
I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing. | |
|
