| reply to Matt
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place said by Matt:While some here would argue that metered billing in ANY form is bad, it can be a positive thing if implemented properly. How is that you ask? Well, for starters, you don't move every tier to metered billing nor do you make it so a customer has to spend 300% more a month to keep the same product they currently have. It is possible to devise a revenue neutral tiering plan with appropriate overage fees so that 95% of your customers would see no difference at all in their monthly costs. And for those in the highest speed/usage tier(those heaviest 5% users), heavy usage would lead to the appropriate extra costs in overage charges.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
|
|
| said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Matt:While some here would argue that metered billing in ANY form is bad, it can be a positive thing if implemented properly. How is that you ask? Well, for starters, you don't move every tier to metered billing nor do you make it so a customer has to spend 300% more a month to keep the same product they currently have. It is possible to devise a revenue neutral tiering plan with appropriate overage fees so that 95% of your customers would see no difference at all in their monthly costs. And for those in the highest speed/usage tier(those heaviest 5% users), heavy usage would lead to the appropriate extra costs in overage charges. But that wouldn't lead to the revenues they seek. There were alot of watered down alternatives, however TW shot for it all at once. This should be now known as a benchmark for where all carriers want to take the consumer. Any "ala carte" type billing potentially could cut into the incremental base they have now. And theat 95% of your customers is the group that they're looking to have pay these new revenues! |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:It is possible to devise a revenue neutral tiering plan with appropriate overage fees so that 95% of your customers would see no difference at all in their monthly costs. And for those in the highest speed/usage tier(those heaviest 5% users), heavy usage would lead to the appropriate extra costs in overage charges. I still think you have to give people the option of keeping their existing plans with no limits. I know personally, I'd pay a bit extra to not have to worry about monitoring my usage. If you have people who abuse it (the frequently touted "bandwidth hog") then you take appropriate action.
If it really is only 1% of their user base, how hard would it be to move them to a higher tier or force them to move to usage based billing? If they are really costing the company so much money, you'd solve two problems, one, they'd stop using so much which saves you money, or two, you generate more revenue from that customer. Either way (Whether you believe a customer not using as much data even saves them money or not. I don't.) you solve the problem you are parroting. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:But that wouldn't lead to the revenues they seek. There were alot of watered down alternatives, however TW shot for it all at once. I think that part sums it up very succinctly. They shot their whole wad going for the ideal way they wanted to bill their customers. |
|
Reviews:
 ·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
 ·Comcast
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by fAcEtIOUs:It is possible to devise a revenue neutral tiering plan with appropriate overage fees so that 95% of your customers would see no difference at all in their monthly costs. And for those in the highest speed/usage tier(those heaviest 5% users), heavy usage would lead to the appropriate extra costs in overage charges. I still think you have to give people the option of keeping their existing plans with no limits. I know personally, I'd pay a bit extra to not have to worry about monitoring my usage. If you have people who abuse it (the frequently touted "bandwidth hog") then you take appropriate action. If it really is only 1% of their user base, how hard would it be to move them to a higher tier or force them to move to usage based billing? If they are really costing the company so much money, you'd solve two problems, one, they'd stop using so much which saves you money, or two, you generate more revenue from that customer. Either way (Whether you believe a customer not using as much data even saves them money or not. I don't.) you solve the problem you are parroting. The last time I went to a buffet you can't take home what you can't eat
To discourage customer from giving their leftover to others
as long as you don't take any home, their isn't a problem if you have taken more then you can chew
It is preferred that you leave it their so they can either dump it or save some leftover for the next day |
|
| Rollover bandwidth...theres an idea. Although you'd have the same congestion at peak times now! |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | said by S_engineer:Rollover bandwidth...theres an idea. Although you'd have the same congestion at peak times now! Not to mention that it would completely negate the notion that metered billing is a necessity for the continued survival of the cable industry, and not just a money grab. |
|
