how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
593 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY Reviews:
 ·Verizon VoiceWing
 ·Verizon FiOS
·VOIPo
| I know everyone is going to scream but It depends on the pay as you go price. I jumped from a regular cell to a pay as you go package and saved over $20 a month. See, I am not a big user of cell phones.
If pay as you go internet was decently priced I would go with it. If it's just a way to increase prices, then I have no use for it. | |
|   morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: I know everyone is going to scream but you don't really expect them to lower prices for anyone, do you? | |
| Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
| said by bgraham:It depends on the pay as you go price. I jumped from a regular cell to a pay as you go package and saved over $20 a month. See, I am not a big user of cell phones. If pay as you go internet was decently priced I would go with it. If it's just a way to increase prices, then I have no use for it. The opposite of decently is indecent.
The proposed metering pricing was definitely indecent, unseemly, inappropriate, rude, condescending, patronizing, disdainful, and just down right wrong.
Of course no one would have a problem with reasonable pricing, but that is not what they did thus the fuss. | |
|  banditws6Shrinking Time and DistancePremium
join:2001-08-18
Frisco, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Your story makes sense. My wife recently did the same thing. She hardly ever uses her cell phone, but I want her to at least have one because we ditched our landline and I need the ability to communicate with her while I am out. So she got a TracFone. Honestly, it is perfect.
The problem, though, is that in areas where cable companies has moved to metered billing, I don't often see cheaper plans being offered for those who use less. As far as I can tell, the cable companies only seek to set limits on what we already have and charge above and beyond for usage that, today, is acceptable -- and ignore the other side of the equation, which is offering more cost-effective options to people who use less. If people moving insane amounts of data are impacting the network, I think they should be penalized on an individual basis -- since this is likely to impact the network differently depending on the robustness of the plant in each local area.
I mostly see the metered billing argument not as a "get what you pay for" plan, but as a "pay more when you aren't using your connection the way the ISP thinks you should use it" plan. In most cases, the ISP does not have altruistic intentions behind its definition of how you should use its service. It wants to maximize its profits by, for example, having you use their own video-on-demand service instead of watching online.
Case in point: As a consumer, I have decided that the Scientific Atlanta set-top equipment offered by my cable company is horrendous (it would be hard to disagree, I think) and so I purchased a TiVo. My TiVo does not have VoD capability. Instead, I use Netflix instant streaming. To then be penalized on the bandwidth side effectively because the cable company's hardware offering is terrible rubs me the wrong way. I am grateful that my ISP (Comcast) has set a soft cap with a realistic ceiling, so I am not likely to be adversely affected at this time. By comparison, Time Warner's proposed caps bordered on the criminally insane.
While private companies have every right to make moves like this, customers have every right to dislike it and even see it for what it is: a money grab. And ultimately, they have the right to stop doing business with that company -- although therein lies the rub, thanks to the fact that where broadband exists, there are often few (if any) realistic competitive options.
--
"I'll follow the law until it's just stupid." -Ted Nugent | |
| | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: I know everyone is going to scream but "thanks to the fact that where broadband exists, there are often few (if any) realistic competitive options."
True we NEED more competition and we NEED to get rid of the monopolies/ duopolies and get said competition. Mostly we need content providers to stop masquerading as internet companies and get some real ISPs that care about their costumer. | |
| | | | said by banditws6:The problem, though, is that in areas where cable companies has moved to metered billing, I don't often see cheaper plans being offered for those who use less. And that's the most annoying thing about what TW was trying to do. They had no intention of making changes for "the consumer". Any billing model change that TW makes is going to be designed to increase their profits. I would have had a little more respect for them if they admitted that fact (but only a little). | |
|
 fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | That's exactly the problem. They want pay-as-you go but they want to start at the price point they're at now rather than dropping it to represent the barebones cost requirements for providing raw services on top of which you'd pay the added usage charges. That would be more reasonable but to start with the current costs as a base point and go upwards is idiotic.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com | |
|  neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL | Let all ISPs use the same wires and open the market up to competition, I wonder how far the ones that have a cap and metered usage would do in that competitive market. | |
|
| |
|
