BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to openbox9
Re: Devil is in the details...
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. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| "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? |
|
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| 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. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
 ·Comcast
| 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. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| 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. |
|
