 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
2 edits | To many of us here who frequent BBR we look at these 5~40Gb numbers and say...huh?
What are they thinking? And why are they so low.
To Time Warner though, they probably look at them and see that the vast majority of their customers probably do fall into those ranges and the whole debate has probably become a numbers game of sorts. I've been a big proponent of the very upper tiers of customers starting to be subjected to caps and overage charges. I feel that way because like it or not..everyone else winds up paying for them. The ONLY reason someone is able to get a 6~15Mb connection and 300 gigs of data a month for 40 dollars and change a month is because everyone else is subsidizing that. And this is what I think caps and overages should address...not to seek to limit others from a reasonable to even a heavier amount of usage.
I mean..this is BROADBAND we're talking about. And the whole concept of having a connection this fast isn't to say to someone..you can have a 10Gig a month limit. I think that Time Warner would be well served to raise their limit to at least 100gig and call it a day at that level. Go over that and you pay more. I really don't think it will affect them because the majority of their customers still won't come close to that. It will be more of a marketing move than anything else to keep up the appearance that they're fair and competitive. What it will do though is to address the extreme users and to bring fairness back to pricing.
To be clear about this..I don't think there should be caps at all. If someone wants and is willing to pay for 500 gigs a month...the network should be able to provide for that.
But, the customers wallets should also be able to provide for that then. And not expect for everyone else to foot that bill in the form of higher fees for all.
Time Warner management..you need at least 100 gig limits.
Or that vocal minority will rip you to shreds because of it. |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | And at the same time, I expect that if someone only uses 1 gig per month, then it should also reflect on the customers wallet. If you want metered billing, implement a base access charge, and tiers of usage. Why should someone who only uses 1 gig have to subsidize the people using "up to" 100?
Oh, but they would lose their asses if they didn't subsidize, and everyone knows that. You can't have it both ways. Either you are metered, or you aren't.
cw |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to Rick
said by Rick:we look at these 5~40Gb numbers and say...huh? What are they thinking? And why are they so low. To Time Warner though, they probably look at them and see that the vast majority of their customers probably do fall into those ranges and the whole debate has probably become a numbers game of sorts. tehn how come they have to up them because they've recieved so many complaints? "Small but vocal" my ass. They've had a "small but vocal" group of subscribers wanting NFL Network. They haven't see fit to placate them. That number is a lot bigger than TW is admitting. 40 GB is nothing. |
|
|
|
 joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA | reply to wentlanc
said by wentlanc:And at the same time, I expect that if someone only uses 1 gig per month, then it should also reflect on the customers wallet. If you want metered billing, implement a base access charge, and tiers of usage. Why should someone who only uses 1 gig have to subsidize the people using "up to" 100? Same reason I pay $20/mo for a copper phone line whether I dial out or not. You pay for access. I do agree, though, that they can change the model. $10 access, plus $xx/GB or something like that. |
|
