said by maartena: said by viperpa33s:
I don't understand why they don't offer TRUE metered billing if it's all about fairness? They say they should have a system like the electric company but don't apply it that way. They offer bread crumbs with packages that make people think they are getting a great deal with metered billing when they're not. Then they offer high bandwidth content hoping that people will go over there caps. The overage fees is going to bring in huge money for TWC.
That is very easily answered. You electrical company charges a base fee of only a FEW dollars including local taxes, fees etc.... If you don't use ANY electricity whatsoever, you will pay a bill somewhere along the lines of $3 to $8, depending on city, state, etc you are in.
If we take $5 as an average, and because the cable companies are greedy and you have an expensive modem that you rent, we'll just double that to $10.
Now lets charge per GB at $1 per Gb. In order to reach the same income level that they have now, based on a $45 average price (some people have lite, some people have premium), they will break even ONLY if everyone downloads 35 Gb, OR the total amount of GB's downloaded by all customers combined equals or exceeds the 35 Gb per customer mark.
The reality is that - and these are GUESSED numbers - 80% of customers probably download less then 20 Gb, 15% downloads less then 100 Gb, and 5% downloads more then 100 Gb.
If one downloads less then 20 Gb in this scenario, the monthly bill will never exceed $30, and more often then not is probably around the $20 mark, which would mean that TWC would lose a HUGE amount of money.
Also, all utilities are regulated by the local government of the county or city. THEY decide what the rate is going to be, or at least what the maximum can be. Prices are heavily regulated. If broadband needs to be a utility, then the local government is going to want their say as well.
Bottom Line: They would lose a lot of money if they are operating it as a utility, and I don't believe we'll see a lot of investing if that were to be the case.
So no thanks, let the market decide, not some bureaucrat.
I agree with most of what you said but we still have the fairness issue to contend with. If we go by what a lot of of people have said about being fair, true metered billing would be the way to go. I believe the company would still make money with true metered billing because the electric company makes money.
If they charge .30 cents a gb and you download 300 gigs one month, then you would be paying $90. If you decide to download less the next month, then of course you would end up paying less. People would actually pay for what they are using. Then you wouldn't have the fight between the grandma's of the world and the people who use the internet the way it was intended.
Like I have said previously, they want people to go over the caps so they can get the overage fees. The overage fees is like free money to them. They know a lot of people would go over there caps and that's what they are counting on. Saying that you can still download thousands of web pages and emails is a bunch of garbage.
The company can make as much as it wants, I don't have a problem with it. I don't believe government intervention is the answer either. The problem I have is the company insulting the intelligence of there customers. If this is all about fairness, then go to true metered billing. Don't water it down and make it like your getting more when your not.