 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to en102
Re: Why stop at very healthy profits? Short term gain over long term prosperity? I dunno. Seems like a bad idea. It will definitely breathe new life into muni broadband systems. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | If they set their rates 'decently' enough, then its not a big deal... yet (eg. Comcast set to 250GB?), vs. TWC was to set as low as 10-40GB. I 'personally' don't like caps/bill by the byte, etc. However, as always, these companies will set a 'value' to the consumption, and what was speed is now being converted to consumption.
Instead of Cable/TV offering 'faster tier' if you bundle (30/1Mbps is standard here on TWC with boost), they'll be offering double your allowable consumption.
If you get a DVR, HD, sports package,etc. You can have unlimited consumption.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
|
|
 aSicapplication specificPremium
join:2001-05-17
Wakulla, FL | reply to morbo
said by morbo:Short term gain over long term prosperity? I dunno. Seems like a bad idea. ... Isnt that what the federal government has been doing for the past few months? They've set quite an example to live up to. These pesky corporations are just following the leader.
--
Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say. |
|
 joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA | reply to en102
said by en102:If they set their rates 'decently' enough, then its not a big deal... yet (eg. Comcast set to 250GB?) You think? The comcast board is full of complaints about the meter, as well as the cap. Even though it's maybe .1% who will exceed this cap, the complaints go right down to the guy who knows he's only using 50GB/mo. |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | The guy who uses 50GB today - will use 500GB in a few years. With streaming HDTV and other forms of media shifting towards the internet, 250GB is going to look like nothing in no time.
Think about it like this:
Today's average consumption is 50GB, cap is 250GB.
In 2 years average consumption is 100GB, cap is still 250GB.
In 5 years average consumption is 500GB, cap is still 250GB so people get hit with bills twice the amount for "exceeding" the cap.
It's in essence a way for them to ensure today that in a few years they'll be able to hit a signficant amount of users with overage fees - without the negative publicity coming from per-byte billing, and without the regulatory headaches. In 5 years when the regulators come knocking on their doors they'll say "but we've been working like this for years!". It's sneaky, but that's what they're trying to do IMHO. Not a bad business plan at all, actually. |
|
| reply to morbo
"Short term gain over long term prosperity?"
Hey it worked REAL good the last 8 years of unfettered banking laws! Let's do it again!
(hmmm, secretly me thinks I better invest in dialup AOL stock) |
|
joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA | reply to nitzan
said by nitzan:The guy who uses 50GB today - will use 500GB in a few years. With streaming HDTV and other forms of media shifting towards the internet, 250GB is going to look like nothing in no time. Absent caps, there are the top few (the .1%) who use more than the bottom 50%. I'd expect that once the meter is available, those top .1% are savvy enough to trade off whatever the heck they are doing with the important stuff they'd like to keep doing.
I agree that we should expect the cap to be lifted, on some semi-regular basis.
I find it curious that when we talk taxes, the top .1% are vilified, everyone wants to tax them 1000% if we could, yet the top .1% of bandwidth users are heroes. As a ~40GB/mo user, I'm subsidizing them as are 99% of us. Let them pay their way. |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | said by joetaxpayer:I agree that we should expect the cap to be lifted, on some semi-regular basis. Do you seriously think they're going to raise the cap on a regular basis? or raise it at all? again- this is an easy way for them to pave the way for future overage charges for average users.
I find it curious that when we talk taxes, the top .1% are vilified, everyone wants to tax them 1000% if we could Maybe YOU want to tax them 1000%. I think the top .1% should be paying exactly the same tax rates as you and me. They already pay millions (or more) in taxes as it is - and if you put too much tax burden on them they'll simply move their business elsewhere. You can't tax someone millions of dollars and expect them not to be able to creatively shift income around so it doesn't get taxed. For you and me it's not worth the trouble - for the upper .1% of taxpayers it very well will be if you tax them high enough. |
|
