how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to karlmarx
Re: Internet has become a utility said by karlmarx:Look at it this way, we DON'T pay by the mile on non-toll roads. You are free too use the roads as much as you want. If you are riding your bike, you pay NOTHING to use it as much as you want. Granted, there was a HUGE capital cost to build the roads, and there are maintenance fees, but the actual USE of the roads costs nothing. Gasoline taxes pay for both of these.
I do see broadband becoming a utility, but it won't be bill-by-the-byte exclusively. There will be a fixed "district" charge as well which will apply no matter how much or how little you use it. Usage will be added above that.
You can still pay in a "flat" manner. I pay all my utilities on my own "fixed" plan. I estimate my 12-month usage, double-pay my first bill and pay 1/10th of that estimate for several months. Then I actually open an envelope every 3-6 months or so and find out whether I'm on track. (Some utilities will do this for you, but usually only on accounts with a year or more of history.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| | |
|
| Again, we see to be stumbling on the 'by the byte' part of this. Please show me how it costs any more to transmit 1 byte, vs transmitting 1 megabyte?
The COST is exactly the same. Sure, if EVERYONE is using 1 megabyte, then you need to BUILD the infrastructure to support it, but that's what the monthly fee is for. To amortize the cost of building out, and to support the monthly maintenance.
NONE of that cost will change if the network is at 1% load vs 99% load. The COST to PROVIDE the service is a FIXED COST.
So why do you propose a VARIABLE pricing scheme for a FIXED COST product? That's just plain greedy.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | I don't propose it, in fact I oppose it. But it's not an unworkable model and I don't let the fact that I personally don't like the idea keep me from talking about it objectively.
Bandwidth is a fixed cost product up to an ISP who acts as a bandwidth aggregater.
Because, as you rightfully point out, it doesn't cost any more or less to send 1 byte than it does 1 megabyte, an aggregater can take an amount of bandwidth (say 1000 Mbps) and divide it into subscriptions (say 10 Mbps each). And because not everyone will use those the Internet at the same time, he can sell more than 100 subscriptions and make more profit and/or lower subscription costs. As long as it works out that every user can admit or get his 10 Mbps, there's nothing wrong with this model.
So let's say he sells 101 subscriptions. After months of operations, he finds that he's not even close to using half of his 1000 Mbps connection.
So then he sells more and has 150 subscribers. Still not close
So then he goes for 250 subscribers. Now the numbers are comfortable. 95% of the time, his network and gateway are congestion free.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
