phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
 ·Comcast
| Devil is in the details...
As always... the devil is in the details.
I do not have a fundamental problem with notion of metered billing. In essence, that is similar to what we have with cell phones. On my plan, I get 450 Minutes to use to call non-Verizon Wireless customers during certain times of the week. If I exceed those minutes I pay for each additional minute.
The problem I have... is that ISPs don't seem to be able to prove a desperate business case for moving to metered billing, beyond further increasing their profits (which, isn't, in and of itself, a bad thing). Since it seems most of the ISPs are doing just fine with unlimited (or relatively reasonable or high caps [i.e. Comcast]) usage paradigms at their current prices, suddenly capping usage at ridiculously low levels and maintaining the monthly cost is absurd. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that said move is nothing but an attempt at gouging.
Instead, if an ISP said... they were going to reduce the basic cost of having service to say $10 and then charge a (reasonable) amount per gigabyte... then I could believe the ISP really had grandma's interests in mind. Rather, it seems most ISPs are going to keep Grandma's and everyone else's rate the same and tack on (insane) per gigabyte overage fees. It seems Grandma aint' going to be paying anything less than she already is... and why Grandma can see clear as day the ISP doesn't really care about her occasional/lite internet use. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by phantom6294  :Instead, if an ISP said... they were going to reduce the basic cost of having service to say $10 and then charge a (reasonable) amount per gigabyte... then I could believe the ISP really had grandma's interests in mind. If I were responsible for transitioning consumer billing from flat rate to metering and the public persuasion that goes along with it, I would incrementally raise the rates across the board for flat rate billing, while providing a "discount" back to the normal rate to entice customers to opt into metered billing. That way the ISP increases their revenue and leaves the metered billing decision to the customer. And if ISPs really need to cover pay TV lost revenue, they can continue to raise rates for the flat rate billing to "force" consumers into metered billing. It's a strategy that would need to happen over the course of a few years, not months or days, but ultimately it give the consumer choice. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  reply to phantom6294
All good points. There is nothing wrong with billing by traffic consumed. In fact, that makes much more sense than the existing system.
The trick is in setting the "Fixed portion" rate(say $10/mo) and then setting the variable use rate. Should the variable rate be 1 number no matter how much is used. Or should it be like electric rates that rise in the summer as more is consumed to discourage overuse. For example(and this is an example only and not rates I feel should be used), say setting the variable rate at $1/GB up to 40GB used, and then $1.25/GB for every GB used above that.
Ultimately however, whatever rates are set, they should result in the same profit percentages over costs for the company. That is, the new rate system should be NEUTRAL as to existing income and profits, but one that would then also allocate costs to users based on their usage.
The discourage overuse part is needed so that the system is not terribly slowed down at peak times. The rate structure needs to develop ways to charge those users driving peak usage higher so that infrastructure can be expanded to grow peak capacity.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| The institution of tiered pricing should not be allowed until there is significant competition in every territory. Significant denotes at least 4 ISPs offering very similar product.
Otherwise, a return to dark age early 90's usage based pricing should be predicated on turning the internet into a highly regulated utility. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :said by phantom6294 :Instead, if an ISP said... they were going to reduce the basic cost of having service to say $10 and then charge a (reasonable) amount per gigabyte... then I could believe the ISP really had grandma's interests in mind. If I were responsible for transitioning consumer billing from flat rate to metering and the public persuasion that goes along with it, I would incrementally raise the rates across the board for flat rate billing, while providing a "discount" back to the normal rate to entice customers to opt into metered billing. That way the ISP increases their revenue and leaves the metered billing decision to the customer. And if ISPs really need to cover pay TV lost revenue, they can continue to raise rates for the flat rate billing to "force" consumers into metered billing. It's a strategy that would need to happen over the course of a few years, not months or days, but ultimately it give the consumer choice. Yes RAISE rates. Especially in this economy. So basically what you are saying is the ISP should fuck people over for a few years then fuck them over again by making them think they are getting a "discount" when they are paying what they would have been paying anyways.
Most ISP also offer TV. Now if they are going to play games then I'll either cut back on my internet or cut back on my TV. So they are going to LOSE revenue somewhere if they decide to be cute. So why bother? Besides they make enough with their bullshit fees anyways. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to phantom6294
said by phantom6294 :As always... the devil is in the details. I do not have a fundamental problem with notion of metered billing. In essence, that is similar to what we have with cell phones. On my plan, I get 450 Minutes to use to call non-Verizon Wireless customers during certain times of the week. If I exceed those minutes I pay for each additional minute. yes and Verizon gives you nights and week-ends free. Do ISPs have such plan to offer cap free times? If congestion is an issue then convincing people to use their conection for downloading larger files durring non busy times would help would it not? So who plans on offering these? No one I know of. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to BF69
"This economy" hasn't shown an impact to the number of customers, or the prices they're willing to pay for service, so that's a non-issue as of now.
One of the arguments against metered billing around this forum is that it doesn't provide any perceived consumer benefit. If consumers actually have a choice to pay up for flat rate billing or save money with metered billing, how is that not a good thing in the eyes of consumers? Besides, based on numerous remarks on this forum, when metered billing finally gets here, a lot of DSLR users will be paying more anyway, so why not have a choice of how much more we'll have to pay? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :If congestion is an issue then convincing people to use their conection for downloading larger files durring non busy times would help would it not? So who plans on offering these? No one I know of. I've seen a few smaller ISPs around with caps that open things up in the wee hours of the morning and other "non-primetimes". Although Comcast is metering your usage, my understanding of their congestion management system essentially does what you're discussing. |
|
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·Comcast
 ·VOIPo
| reply to openbox9
The problem that I have with this proposal is that it doesn't leave anybody in the position of paying even a dime less than what they are paying now.
From what I'm hearing, you would support the idea of raising flat fee ISP rates, and providing a false "discount" back to the current rates of today for anyone voluntarily switching over to a metered billing system.
If you couple that with the widespread assumption that metered billing will eventually lead to people paying even more, then what eventually becomes reality is that under either system ISPs wind up making substantially more than they are today for providing the same exact service.
That, in this consumer's opinion, is an unreasonable expectation. I would prefer to stick with Comcast at the moment, but if they tried something like this I'd drop them and pick up DSL in their place. Sure, it's slower; but I'd wind up paying less too.
--
It took Abraham Lincoln to free the slaves. And it's taking Barack Obama to enslave the free.
The Obama Administration: as transparent as my grandmother's flannel nightgown. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by NOVA_Guy :If you couple that with the widespread assumption that metered billing will eventually lead to people paying even more, then what eventually becomes reality is that under either system ISPs wind up making substantially more than they are today for providing the same exact service. ISPs stand to grow revenue which enables increased reinvestment into infrastructure and customer support.said by NOVA_Guy :I would prefer to stick with Comcast at the moment, but if they tried something like this I'd drop them and pick up DSL in their place. Sure, it's slower; but I'd wind up paying less too. The big boys are making a push for consumption based billing, whether it be metering, caps, or most likely a combination. If the push is successful, I don't think you'll have a choice when the dust settles. |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :All good points. There is nothing wrong with billing by traffic consumed. In fact, that makes much more sense than the existing system.=
Your comment makes sense if the subscriber could predict the amount of data to be downloaded by system overhead and the various websites accessed. Right now one does not know if or when the operating system or applications are going to down a 200Kb patch or a 200Mb Service Pack. Subscribers might stop installing patches to avoid using up their monthly allocation.
What is worse if one access the wrong website the subscriber might be linked to some advertisers website downloading 6Mb per minute of crap without their knowledge.
Measured service should be illegal until operating systems, applications and websites are updated to indicate to the subscriber how much data an operation will download and a method to cancel an operation before it starts. If Acrobat Reader requires a 10Mb Security Patch then the user/subscriber should be allowed to decide whether or not to download the patch. Of course this may result in many un-patched systems with security holes. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
I don't for minute believe that an increased revenue will be directed towards infrastructure, especially since the billions in profits they're making now aren't filtering towards upgrades (e.g Time Warner). There also seems to be a trend away from their original argument. which was that metered billing relieves congestion, when it does no such thing.
And if they were to allow for patches for OS's, and programs, then they also must allow for advertisements through DNS redirection that nobody wants to see. This is all crap....a made up crisis to allow the implementation of a more profitable billing system. They oversold, so now they want you to pay more and receive less!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :said by NOVA_Guy :If you couple that with the widespread assumption that metered billing will eventually lead to people paying even more, then what eventually becomes reality is that under either system ISPs wind up making substantially more than they are today for providing the same exact service. ISPs stand to grow revenue which enables increased reinvestment into infrastructure and customer support. Man if you believe that I have several gold mines in Florida I wish to sell you. they have revenue NOW coming in that they aren't reinvesting. Go look at TW financials and their statements about NOT upgrading to docsis 3.0
ISPs like to bring up electricity and water as reasons why they should be able to have metered billing. Last time I checked both are very regulated and the ISPs want to have nothing to do with that. Well you can't have your cake and eat it too. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :said by BF69 :If congestion is an issue then convincing people to use their conection for downloading larger files durring non busy times would help would it not? So who plans on offering these? No one I know of. I've seen a few smaller ISPs around with caps that open things up in the wee hours of the morning and other "non-primetimes". Although Comcast is metering your usage, my understanding of their congestion management system essentially does what you're discussing. So comcast takes my download and delays it to 2 AM? Um I think not. |
|
RR User
@rr.com
| reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt :Right now one does not know if or when the operating system or applications are going to down a 200Kb patch or a 200Mb Service Pack. Subscribers might stop installing patches to avoid using up their monthly allocation. .. If Acrobat Reader requires a 10Mb Security Patch then the user/subscriber should be allowed to decide whether or not to download the patch. Of course this may result in many un-patched systems with security holes. Lets at 200 Mb you'd hit a 5 GB limit after 50 updates... If there was a $1 per GB overlimit fee, you'd pay 20cents extra. Last I heard MS or any software provider doesn't push out 50 general release patches a month.
Worrying about The 10 MB patch is laughable... 1000 patches a month if you got a 5 GB limit...
And 200k.... are you really worried?
So many users on this site are pissed at these caps when they have no clue how much or little they use in relation to any proposed caps... |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :Man if you believe that I have several gold mines in Florida I wish to sell you. No thank you, I've lived in FL before. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to BF69
No, but they manage congestion during peak time by throttling the users that are causing the congestion. |
|
john131971
join:2003-05-05
Louisville, KY | reply to sonicmerlin
Believe that's the game plan! |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :The trick is in setting the "Fixed portion" rate(say $10/mo) and then setting the variable use rate. I used no natural gas one month, and I get hit with a $25 bill. My electrical bill is $20 right off the bat, then per kwh "regulatory fees" created by the state PUC to pay the power company to maintain its own network. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt :Right now one does not know if or when the operating system or applications are going to down a 200Kb patch or a 200Mb Service Pack. Subscribers might stop installing patches to avoid using up their monthly allocation. Botnet FTW!
What is worse if one access the wrong website the subscriber might be linked to some advertisers website downloading 6Mb per minute of crap without their knowledge.
Oh yeah, I've seen webmasters that put up 2 paused streaming video flash ads that do a silent animation then minimize back to their box with a paused video downloading in background, and then 1 auto play streaming video flash (usually fortune 500 tv ad). Then users will be wondering why all the bandwidth to check the weather or sports scores.
Measured service should be illegal until operating systems, applications and websites are updated to indicate to the subscriber how much data an operation will download and a method to cancel an operation before it starts. If Acrobat Reader requires a 10Mb Security Patch then the user/subscriber should be allowed to decide whether or not to download the patch. Of course this may result in many un-patched systems with security holes.
Yep, one good thing is, suddenly there will be a dead serious reason for developers to control the insane software bloat today. If it runs fine on the most expensive fastest quad core, and looks snazzy to the CEO, its a hit. 99% of computer/internet tasks would be fine on a 700 mhz Pentium 3, if software and web developers stopped the bloat. Will we ever have the days of this »www.litepc.com/98micro.html again? (except please make it NT series so it doesn't crash every day). A modern cellphone OS is more bloated and needs more hardware than Windows 2000 it seems to me nowadays. Pathetic. |
|
