AVonGauss
Premium,MVM
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | reply to IPPlanMan
Re: Something to look forward to with Comcast...
Yet, you are the one constantly advocating metered billing in the Comcast HSI forum. I think your comment may be out of place as Comcast has not announced any attention to do metered billing at this time. |
|
IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
3 edits | That's right... I am!
I think metered billing is a great idea.
Based on Cogeco, I think they're going to screw it up bigtime if they try it.
That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.
It should be done well.
My case for metered billing is that it encourages infrastructure investment. What incentive does Comcast have to invest in its infrastructure when you pay them a flat fee each month no matter how much you use... (well, up to 250GB that is).... |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by IPPlanMan  :... It should be done well. up front statement: I hate the concept of metered billing.
that being said, if it's going to be done, it has to be done well. but there should also be an independent entity (govt or otherwise) that certifies the accuracy of the metering system the ISP is using - much like what is done with gas pumps, electric meters, water meters, etc.
if they want to charge by the bit, they should be made to prove they are accurately measuring the bits being used. |
|
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to AVonGauss
I dont advocate it, i just think the current comcast cap is reasonable. I would prefer an uncapped, unmetered, unthrottled service; just as most heavy internet users would. |
|
IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC | reply to nasadude
Damn right! |
|
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan :My case for metered billing is that it encourages infrastructure investment. What incentive does Comcast have to invest in its infrastructure when you pay them a flat fee each month no matter how much you use... (well, up to 250GB that is).... Great in theory. Unproven in reality. The encouragement for infrastructure should be customer retention and acquisition. Unfortunately if there is no competition there is no reason to do anything for the customer.
--
When will the people realize that with DRM they aren't purchasing anything? |
|
rcabor
join:2007-04-17
Grand Prairie, TX
| reply to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan :That's right... I am! I think metered billing is a great idea. My case for metered billing is that it encourages infrastructure investment. What incentive does Comcast have to invest in its infrastructure when you pay them a flat fee each month no matter how much you use... (well, up to 250GB that is).... But if you cap the amount, then why would you need to invest in infrastructure. The need for growth would come to a crawl/stop. This is why its so attractive for the ISPs, more revenue, no video competition, no need to upgrade network capacity, and crazy profits! |
|
IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC | Damn right. |
|
Michael Chaney
@natinst.com
| reply to IPPlanMan
The only way to do it well is to not do it at all.
Encourages infrastructure investment?!?! Are you serious?!?! Do you actually want me to believe that anyone who implements metered billing is going to use that money to reinvest in infrastructure? BS! Roger isn't. If anything, now that caps keep people from using the high-bandwidth applications they want to use, it will only justify then continuing to NOT reinvest in infrastructure.
The incentive to invest in your infrastructure while charging a flat fee is that that flat fee is still orders of magnitude greater than the cost of infrastructure. The current flat fees being charged are more than enough to rake in fat profits even AFTER using a little to upgrade networks to keep up with the pace of traffic growth.
Your case for metered billing is unfounded. |
|
imanogre
join:2005-11-29
Mcdonough, GA | reply to nasadude
As opposed to customer choice to go with another provider?
This just in "Obama names metered billing Czar"
Sarcasm: Where do I sign up for this |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :that being said, if it's going to be done, it has to be done well. but there should also be an independent entity (govt or otherwise) that certifies the accuracy of the metering system the ISP is using - much like what is done with gas pumps, electric meters, water meters, etc. I haven't seen any independent govt agency checking my electrical or water meter. Does that happen? Is this also applicable to cell phones minutes too? |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by yt :I haven't seen any independent govt agency checking my electrical or water meter. Does that happen? Is this also applicable to cell phones minutes too? Electrical and water meters you can get tests done on, mandated by law by your local PUC or Weights and Measures Dept.
Not sure who regulated cellphone minutes accuracy. |
|
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Michael Chaney
said by Michael Chaney :
The only way to do it well is to not do it at all.
Encourages infrastructure investment?!?! Are you serious?!?! Do you actually want me to believe that anyone who implements metered billing is going to use that money to reinvest in infrastructure? BS! Roger isn't. If anything, now that caps keep people from using the high-bandwidth applications they want to use, it will only justify then continuing to NOT reinvest in infrastructure.
The incentive to invest in your infrastructure while charging a flat fee is that that flat fee is still orders of magnitude greater than the cost of infrastructure. The current flat fees being charged are more than enough to rake in fat profits even AFTER using a little to upgrade networks to keep up with the pace of traffic growth.
Your case for metered billing is unfounded.
It's ok, let them shoot each other in the foot. It just makes my ISP business better because I don't mess with meters. As one ISP to the others, meters are for making money, not expanding services and upgrading your infrastructure to handle more customers.
Bandwidth gets cheaper every day, but rather than pass along the savings, they pocket the money.
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data |
|
Yogi Berra
@teksavvy.com
 from:
PIZZAMAN76
| reply to IPPlanMan
And while they are at it, any meter needs to ignore:
a) reset packets if the provider throttles the connection (the cabeco/telco is doing this for their benefit, not mine)
b) ad insertion content (stuff I didn't ask for)
c) any cableco/telco 'test' packets/probes to customer premises (not on my dime) |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan :My case for metered billing is that it encourages infrastructure investment. What incentive does Comcast have to invest in its infrastructure when you pay them a flat fee each month no matter how much you use... (well, up to 250GB that is).... And exactly how does it encourage investment in infrastructure? Is there any guarantee that any of these overages will go directly to infrastructure upgrades?
Will my bill go down from where it is now? Can grandma get a 5 gig plan for $10 monthly? Metered billing only works when the pricing starts out with actual cost to provide service. And even if I'm not a cable subscriber, I still have a wire in the ground. It does not cost them much to provide service.
cw |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| reply to nasadude
Lol, how can metered billing "be done right" when ISPs never have to reveal or justify their internal statistics (economic data) to an independent entity or government regulators? Do you realize how much money these outfits make? Do you have any clue how little it costs them to maintain their network?
Metered billing is not done anywhere in the world where there is real competition?
It's amusing to see how easily sheep can be shepherded by these corporate wolves. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Kilroy
said by Kilroy :said by IPPlanMan :My case for metered billing is that it encourages infrastructure investment. What incentive does Comcast have to invest in its infrastructure when you pay them a flat fee each month no matter how much you use... (well, up to 250GB that is).... Great in theory. Unproven in reality. ATT, Verizon/MCI/Alter.net/UUNet, Level(3), GlobalCrossing, etc all developed their networks by billing based on usage. Customers are subscribed to a bandwidth level commitment and their usage is tracked and billed according to 95th percentile metering. That's the reason we have all of the backbone capacity that we have today -- more bandwidth usage = more revenue.
said by Kilroy :The encouragement for infrastructure should be customer retention and acquisition. Unfortunately if there is no competition there is no reason to do anything for the customer. Which is exactly why metered billing is a favorable solution. Today providers only upgrade their networks to prevent the loss of massive numbers of customers -- if you're a high-usage customer that leaves you without a lot of options. Companies are always seeking to grow their revenue, and metered billing allows them to sell infrastructure upgrades to investors as future sources of revenue. |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | reply to baineschile
You mean like how every user in every competitive market around the world experiences the internet? Interesting... |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | reply to knightmb
Actually in Cogeco's case they bought an ISP in Turkey or something with all the cash they were supposed to spend on the network.
They are a bunch of clowns. |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | reply to wentlanc
The answer is they offshored all the cash trying to play globalization ISP instead of buying back their shares from Rogers who owns 30% of the company.
Canada has no competition and it's not by mistake. |
|
