 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to R0CKY
Re: Details... said by R0CKY:Looking forward to the details at the end of the month! You're paying for port & commit on your upstream transit circuits -- what makes using the same approach on your transport links to the DSLAMs so evil? |
|
 twizlarI dont think so.Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
kudos:3 | By the Byte billing != 95th percentile or flatrate billing. which is how 99% of the ISP's pay for bandwidth.
--
Broadline Networks Inc. |
|
|
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by twizlar:By the Byte billing != 95th percentile or flatrate billing. which is how 99% of the ISP's pay for bandwidth. Normally quantity-based billing works out better for the subscriber. Any hosting provider that doles out 1000 or 1500GB/mo for usage will tell you that there's always a customer or two who waits until the last day or two of the month to move 100-300GB. Technically they stay under their BW quota, but it can throw off the hosting provider's 95th percentile numbers with their upstream carriers.
Unless the pricing is really out of whack, (port + quantity usage) should bill lower than (port + 95th percentile rate) in the vast majority of cases. |
|
twizlarI dont think so.Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
kudos:3 | We're talking about Bell here, not tier 1 or 2 bulk bandwidth providers, I would imagine they will charge $0.50-$1 per GB
--
Broadline Networks Inc. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by twizlar:We're talking about Bell here, not tier 1 or 2 bulk bandwidth providers, I would imagine they will charge $0.50-$1 per GB I would agree that would be excessive if those were the numbers, but we don't know that yet.
My issue with this whole deal is that people are taking exception to the idea of usage-based billing for ISPs, as no rates have even been floated thusfar. That's how it works for upstream circuits to the carriers and that's how all of the hosting companies bill, so why should broadband providers become a charity case? |
|
Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| Charity case? Are you kidding? Bell is raking it in large. They have roughly 2 Million DSL customers and they charge $47.99/month for a high speed connection. Their customers are already overpaying for their substandard service.
The reality is that telcos are trying to convince everyone that there's a bandwidth crisis. They see an opportunity to make even more money by charging for bandwidth and coming up with other various tiered services. It's just a cash grab. |
|
| reply to espaeth
If they bill by the byte though, then they shouldn't charge up front as well. Plus, they should charge competitive market prices, which is lower than their up front actual fee.
I don't see it happening. I think they'll try to double dip. |
|
| reply to Rastan
Ok, yes, in total, nearly 2 million active ports. But not all of it brings in the figure you quoted. GAS rates are a fraction of the cost of the retail product which is $47.99. And not everyone is on a total plan. Many a client are getting 3-5Mbps sync for total cost of about $30 a month, with between 60GB (sympatico contract/retention) and 200GB (TSI, etc.).
If it was base + usage, I think everyone but the small minority of large P2P downloaders would be better off. Plus IPTV over the GAS product was never going to work... totally unsustainable for the ILEC. It would throw contention ratios out of whack and generate a huge load for no extra money (unless their is usage based billing). |
|
 jubangyPremium
join:2005-03-26
Erie, PA
·ViaTalk
| Doubtful that a bell anything would come up with a reasonable base fee or a usage charge. Probaly would still charge between $30 and $40 which people are paying now and then add to it the usage. Either way anyone looks at it the bells are going to get their double dipping wish someday. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to Capharnaum
said by Capharnaum:If they bill by the byte though, then they shouldn't charge up front as well. They're still going to need to have some fee, but it should be lower then their current base fee. This fee covers the cost of providing the head-end port, including the engineering staff, circuit maintenance, and opportunity cost of the line (ie, if you occupy a router port it can't be sold to someone else). |
|
