how-to block ads
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to Nightfall
Re: Zero justification for it
The very same is said here in the Twin Cities.. That statement about the top 3% using about the same, or more, than the rest of the 97% is echoed around in different systems..
If people actually saw these numbers in person, at the actual computer screen showing the data, people would flip and often not believe it.
Personally, I have no issue with caps, but would like to see them higher.. Comcast wants to do a 250gb cap, rather, I think 500gb is more reasonable, maybe a little higher. Further, passing the cap doesn't mean charges or cut off, personally, I'd rather see the connection slowed to that of a 1.5/256 line. If people want to run wide open connections for everyone else to take files from them.. fine. But when their line becomes almost unusable to the account user him/herself, maybe they'll think twice about opening up their connections to everyone and keep their bandwidth to themselves.
Further, as networks continue to be upgraded, the caps should also reflect reality. | |
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| Why slow down high users, when you can just make them pay more?
I'd be fine with a base price of $50 per month up to 200GB, then $0.25 GB at normal speed after that -OR- you get slowed down to the lowest priority during peak hours where congestion is an issue.
Make the hogs (like myself) pay and they'll either cut back, or at least they'll bear the burden of the added strain they induce on the last-mile. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by jaminus  :Why slow down high users, when you can just make them pay more? In the DSL model I'd agree with you.. make them pay more. Still, I think it should be close to the Fair and Flexible model that Sprint once had with cell phone use. If you go over, they just upgrade you to the next plan for that month.
As for cable, it's a little different. The lines were built for residential use.. they weren't designed for heavy users. In fact, some cities/systems won't let residential homes sign up for business accounts just because of the implied heavy use in that area. The problem is that you have to cut the heavy users back to some degree, not necessarily allow an overage fee, because in a node model, and say you luck out and have a lot of heavy users in one area, they will slow the node down for everyone. You can split the node, but in some areas that's either a costly move OR not worth it if there is a high churn rate in the area.
In some nodes where there are higher rental homes/apts, you split the node and the people move to another node, that split was for nothing. And, in lack on contracts, you never know if the node split would be necessary for too long.
One thing that COULD work is a contract term on heavy users too. If a node split has to be done, at least those causing high use would be held to that contract, no ETF, and paid to term, for the trade of node splitting.
Yes, I realize that the last option is not user friendly, but neither is capital expense for a few people either.  Some operators are actually okay with seeing a few problematic customers become someone else's problem.
I still, also, say that we're in a turning point in the history of the internet where the service and the content are growing at a fast paced and a bit off balance.. I think all of this issue of heavy use will go away in the next 8 years. | |
-
|
