 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | Botched analogy quote:
"Free Press prefers that grandma - who simply wants to download their grandchildren's online photos a few times a month - to pay for the heavy-using teenager who is downloading HD movies."
Grandma that wants to download online photos a few times / month should probably pay ~ $10-$15/month, and 'high' end users should be in the $40-$100/month (6Mbps -> 50Mbps).
The 'caps' on grandma's usage would be a paltry 5GB - not even enough to download typical service pack upgrades without overages.
While I don't like caps, at least Comcast has set a 'usable' 250GB cap. Just because I don't need high speed, doesn't mean I don't want to 'use' the Internet.
I'd almost laugh at this part... I see a BIG shell game here:
quote:
Only affects internet providers with 2 million or more subscribers
AT&T of Santa Clarita, AT&T of San Fernando Valley, AT&T of Burbank....
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | "Grandma that wants to download online photos a few times / month should probably pay ~ $10-$15/month, and 'high' end users should be in the $40-$100/month (6Mbps -> 50Mbps).
The 'caps' on grandma's usage would be a paltry 5GB - not even enough to download typical service pack upgrades without overages."
I agree, if they want 'grandma' to pay less charge her like $10 for a 768-ish connection. If I want a 100m connection so I can and most likely will do more then I do not mind paying more. But make it reasonable. |
|
| Never going to happen. The whole purpose is to have people still pay 30-40ish a month but charge them double or more if they partake in competing video services or any high bandwidth service. Everyone's bill basically goes up to make up for lost cable revenue. |
|
 GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to en102
said by en102:AT&T of Santa Clarita, AT&T of San Fernando Valley, AT&T of Burbank.... Now they're all separate entities with independent pricing structures and speed tiers.
Now you've got a jumble of 1,000,000 different AT&T ISPs confusing the consumer.
--
My BLOG!
Black Friday Ads |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to en102
said by en102: quote:
"Free Press prefers that grandma - who simply wants to download their grandchildren's online photos a few times a month - to pay for the heavy-using teenager who is downloading HD movies."
Grandma that wants to download online photos a few times / month should probably pay ~ $10-$15/month, and 'high' end users should be in the $40-$100/month (6Mbps -> 50Mbps). The 'caps' on grandma's usage would be a paltry 5GB - not even enough to download typical service pack upgrades without overages. While I don't like caps, at least Comcast has set a 'usable' 250GB cap. Just because I don't need high speed, doesn't mean I don't want to 'use' the Internet. You theory assumes ISPs are willing to drastically lower the prices for the low useage customers. That's the rub. They still want to charge those customers the SAME rate yet tell everyone how they are some how saving them money, by charging high useage customers more. Hey I don't have a problem with a low usage person being charged less, but unless the ISPs actually lower those prices it's all bullshit. All those low useage customers that are for this and think they are going to see lower rates are fooling themselves. In 5 years when they are "high useage" customers they'll regret being for metered billing and caps. |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Based on the statement from AT&T, that's what you would expect.
Personally - I know it would not go down, and the only way it will stay decent is through bundling of services.
AT&T already does some of this:
Uverse 'higher' TV packages come with higher speed Internet as the default.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
|
|
 whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to en102
said by en102:The 'caps' on grandma's usage would be a paltry 5GB - not even enough to download typical service pack upgrades without overages. This isn't a bill to all out ban metered based billing. It allows the FCC and the public to regulate price gouging so grandma doesn't get ripped off.
The issue with caps is Internet transit isn't actually billed for * gigabytes/month.
The most common billing method is 95% percentile. Traffic is billed on how much bandwidth is used with their peers (assuming it's paid peering). The top 5% of traffic is dropped.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burstable_billing
So if Grandma uses all her bandwidth (50 mbits) during peak usage all at once she would cost the ISP more than some guy who uses it at 3 mbits (24/7).
So metered billing is a somewhat made up price point. Who regulates that? ISPs like Comcast and TWC claim it's due to last mile costs but what are those costs?
This stops ISPs from just simply saying we're going to make up a fake price model which it appears TWC did.
Comcast's cap might seem reasonable but then again, they're selling wholesale transit on their for under $4/mbit.
You just can't let these ISPs make up transit costs, in an monopolistic/duopolistic market place. Hence the oversight. |
|
1 edit | reply to BF69
said by BF69:In 5 years when they are "high useage" customers they'll regret being for metered billing and caps. Thats the whole issue. 10 years ago my usage was considered extreme. Now it is not. But companies today seem to want to keep the usage amounts today the same in 10 years and charge the same or more (so a 100% markup today would equate to a 5000% in 10 years). In 10 years bandwidth will probably be like $0.0004 per GB (or less). The whole issue is that ISPs are both trying to charge more today and want to keep that high price even as cost to deliver drops.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
Reviews:
 ·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Gbcue
said by Gbcue:said by en102:AT&T of Santa Clarita, AT&T of San Fernando Valley, AT&T of Burbank.... Now they're all separate entities with independent pricing structures and speed tiers. Now you've got a jumble of 1,000,000 different AT&T ISPs confusing the consumer. That wouldn't work.. they'd still be under ONE company rooftop... because the franchise and rights of way purchased from other company assets to a large corporation (merged). Just as a company who has physical structure (aka presence) in a state must collect sales tax for goods and services (unless specifically prohibited, or exepmted). |
|
