| hmmmmm seems like the perfect business model if I have ever seen one. Yeah, I use the internet everyday all day for $40/month and someone next door checks email twice and pays $40/month...the current system makes total sense Karl. You may be the biggest jackass on the internet |
|
|
|
 KoilPremium
join:2002-09-10
Irmo, SC | Do you think that you're going to pay for what you use?? Please. The base cost whether you use 2 "bites" or less is still going to be $20 - $30 bucks, and upwards from there. Not to mention that the low cap scenario is just a pure $$$ maker.
I'm not saying that metered billing can't work, but please...think with your head about how this will really go down, and know that $$$$ talks.
God, I hope there is some type of competition that can spawn from this, and take these dicks down.
--
Let us so live that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry. -Mark Twain
My Blog - Raising Connor - »raisingconnor.blogspot.com/ - updated 3/11/09 |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to factcheckers
seems like the perfect business model if I have ever seen one. I bet you phone company employees say that to ALL the unreasonable business models, you handsome devil.Yeah, I use the internet everyday all day for $40/month and someone next door checks email twice and pays $40/month... The great "but it's only fair" argument (TM) only works if you're willing to charge the 2 e-mail a day user his or her fair share: about $5 a month. Which, you won't.You may be the biggest jackass on the internet Thank you! |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to factcheckers
Re: hmmmmm said by factcheckers :
seems like the perfect business model if I have ever seen one. Yeah, I use the internet everyday all day for $40/month and someone next door checks email twice and pays $40/month...the current system makes total sense Karl. You may be the biggest jackass on the internet
Yeah except you assume that one ISPs go to metered billing that guy that only checks e-mailis going to get a reduced price. He isn't. He's still going to pay $40/month. YOU however will be paying more. It'd be different if he was going to only be charged $15 a month. Then metered billing would have some validity. |
|
| reply to Koil
First off you have no idea what the pricing model may or may not be, and from I can see just have 2 ISPs in my town has driven the price down so much so that I basically get each on taking off the price each year if I switch... so price is not even an issue yet... but as revenue models change so with the way we pay for service...
Oh and if you want to look at it from a realistic perspective - then how come ELECTRICITY AND HEAT are billed as METERED services ----- HMMMMMMM.... oh wait well that is different because of BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... no matter what the argument is all this site will do is bitch and moan about whatever it WANTS and not what the businesses who need to run the businesses need... |
|
| reply to factcheckers
said by factcheckers :
seems like the perfect business model if I have ever seen one. Yeah, I use the internet everyday all day for $40/month and someone next door checks email twice and pays $40/month...the current system makes total sense Karl. You may be the biggest jackass on the internet
Of course the current business model makes total sense. BECAUSE the person that only checks his email twice a day and pays $40/month to do it is EXACTLY the reason there shouldn't be caps with overage charges. Because the average user paying $40 a month isn't using anywhere near $40 worth of bandwidth.
I have seen a very large ISP's broadband residential customer average bits/second when averaged out over all customers from 2008. The average, 42kbit/sec. Yes, you read that right. No, I cannot tell you the ISP.
And it wasn't a surprise to me at all when I saw the numbers. Because I have always known this was the case for the average user. Yes, there are probably times when that average users is watching videos or downloading something, and they certainly spike up to higher speeds. But you average out their usage for a whole year, and you get 42kbit/sec.
I'd rather the current business model continue, where the 42kbit/sec for $40 users are supplementing my well above average usage for $40 with no cap and no overage fee.
ISP's need to focus on killing off the users that go through 1TB or 2TB of data a month, those are the ones that hurt individual nodes. And no one is going to want those people as customers once they get them, unless those people are willing to pay a lot more for service. |
|
| reply to factcheckers
Isn't your ISP verizon?
Wait, yes...
Shill! |
|
| reply to factcheckers
For one thing, you control how much electricity and heat is used. With data, you do NOT directly control what you use. For example, there are ads pushed to you on a web page. There are commercials pushed to you on Hulu, etc. There is spam sent to you. There are DOS attacks and other thing that will eat your bandwidth.
The current way of doing things is just fine. You guys are going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg if your not careful. |
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:seems like the perfect business model if I have ever seen one. I bet you phone company employees say that to ALL the unreasonable business models, you handsome devil. Yeah, I use the internet everyday all day for $40/month and someone next door checks email twice and pays $40/month... The great "but it's only fair" argument (TM) only works if you're willing to charge the 2 e-mail a day user his or her fair share: about $5 a month. Which, you won't. You may be the biggest jackass on the internet Thank you! They forgot to tell you Karl that being called a jackass is now a term of endearment!
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
| reply to factcheckers
said by factcheckers :
First off you have no idea what the pricing model may or may not be Neither Comcast nor TimeWarner reduced their prices 1 cent when they introduced caps. The neighbor who checks email twice a month is still paying as much as before. What in the world would make you think anyone would pay LESS under a new metered plan with Verizon - the kings of nickle and dime EXTRA charges?
And yes, the members of this site will very likely continue to bitch and moan about the idea. The only question is, why are you here?
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/4x 2048Mb G.Skill/WD Raptor 300Gb/3x WD20EADS 2TB/2x PNY GTX 260/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler |
|
 Mrq5The Fab Four
join:1999-08-21
Warren, MI
2 edits | reply to jjeffeory
said by jjeffeory:For one thing, you control how much electricity and heat is used. With data, you do NOT directly control what you use. For example, there are ads pushed to you on a web page. There are commercials pushed to you on Hulu, etc. There is spam sent to you. There are DOS attacks and other thing that will eat your bandwidth. The current way of doing thing Is is just fine. You guys are going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg if your not careful. Actually this is a very important point that needs attention. We cant control all bandwidth to our computers via the Internet. This will certainly put a big dent into adverstising and other Online revenue (coincidently this would make the ISPs very happy in itself).
With this said I do feel a little of the ISPs pain...choke choke, I cant believe I just said that. Billions are being made via the Internet and ISPs just want more of the pie and not be the only one's stuck with the dirty work (lower profit margins, huge investments, tons of support staff, etc...) of providing the core network. Certainly I dont favor metered use but Im inclined to think that I would not be impacted since I am not a heavy downloader. If it must be metered it will only work if its seen to cut down on abuse, period. Maybe set caps during peak hours only. Meaning if you go over 250GB/Month during the time period of 5pm-11pm would you face overage charges. Any time spent online outside of these hours would not count towards the limit. Much like how the phone companies provide Unlimited use during non-peak hours. Just an example idea that could be tweaked since I am awaare there are abusers downloading 24/7.... but does this really negatively impact network performance outside of peak hours? Im not sure. |
|
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | reply to nukscull
The report includes various other interesting tidbits, including the claim that real world ISP broadband speeds are often 50 percent to 80 percent slower than advertised speeds. The agency also notes that 1% of all users drive 20% of traffic and 20% of all users drive 80% of traffic.
From the FCC: We're Halfway Done with with the NBP article today.
There are set costs for equipment in the last mile which need to be covered but the 20% crowd are the ones that are driving the costs up. As this article or one of the posters the equipment limited the usage now nics are so cheap and servers at content providers feed it at next to nothing. When you have flat rate billing people will waste it. Gas is not flat rate but when it was $2 and went to $4 a lot of people found they did not really need that big SUV to just commute to work.
I would benefit if they had a low usage rate. Heck I could have doubled my usage under the very low TWC 40 Gig cap and still have come under the cap. If the ISP don't feel they have the money to spend then don't look for upgrades in the under served areas.
This crowd wants to pick and chose but it needs to be looked at as a whole. One size does not work. |
|
