 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | Flate rate is also easier to forcast Mary Jo and Bob may decide its a tight month and use less bandwidth this month meaning lower revenues. Its hard to predict those ups and downs.
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~ |
|
|
|
| And then they lose their house if they get hacked? |
|
 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to PhoenixDown
I think per-byte billing is inevitable; but most companies will offer an unlimited option |
|
baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to insomniac84
said by insomniac84:And then they lose their house if they get hacked? obviously if a customer is regularly using less than a gig per month, and then one month they have 500+ and get a huge bills, ISPs should be willing to deal with these situations smoothly. |
|
| reply to baineschile
No way. The issue with it will be cost. Companies will only move to it if it ensures them more money.
If you are paying 40 bucks a month right now for unlimited and they cap that at 10gb and charge 1 dollar for each additional GB, your bill is going to go up. No one would save anything.
The fact that there are stock based companies makes it illegal for them to change their billing in any way that involves the customers paying less money.
I would hope customers will continue to oppose metered billing for these obvious reasons. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | reply to baineschile
Well, if the wireless industry is any indication of how these scenarios would be handled, they only get smoothed-over once the media makes a big stink out of the situation and it becomes a public relations disaster. |
|
baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI Reviews:
·Comcast
·magicjack.com
| reply to insomniac84
said by insomniac84:If you are paying 40 bucks a month right now for unlimited and they cap that at 10gb and charge 1 dollar for each additional GB, your bill is going to go up. No one would save anything. Assuming that you use more than 10gb, yes |
|
| reply to baineschile
Re: Flate rate is also easier to forecast I can understand where you're coming from baineschile but
as the title states, its neither necessary nor inevitable. If anything history, other countries, and consumers has taught us is that flat-rate is the way of broadband. It always comes back full-circle to it. It's simpler and cheaper and that is what the average American is looking for. Not to mention all of the internet-able devices out there that thrive on the ability to use that broadband connection for streaming movies, medical information, downloading/playing video games, ,VoIP, video conferencing, VPN for work at home users, etc... I believe not only do you stifle innovation but you also say you're willing to financially rape consumers for something that an ISP pays pennies on a dollar for during a recession but if you're killing to do teired services you better be prepared to either deduct the amount owed for what I didn't use or let me carry over what amount I did not use to the next month with no cut-off dates. |
|
1 edit | reply to baineschile
Re: Flate rate is also easier to forcast If the reports of cell phone users accidentally incurring huge roaming charges are any indication, the ISPs will reduce the user's $100,000 one month bill to a more affordable $10,000.
EDIT: I should really read existing replies before I reply. jmn1207  said essentially the same thing.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | My lawyers will be contacting you.  |
|
 CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | reply to insomniac84
If they price it right - unlimited can be a top tier for those folks wanting it and they can do metered below. If they can price it that they make more money while customers are willing to pay for it (kinda like cell service now) then yes - it will happen and the companies will make more money.
--
Brian
"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain |
|
| reply to baineschile
Yea, because the customer should never be held liable anything. |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19
·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:My lawyers will be contacting you. lmao |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
1 edit | reply to CylonRed
The problem is the cell phone companies build the network, they do not pay per byte so it makes no sense to charge customers per byte.
Paying per byte does not allow more users since everyone can still flood the network at the same time.
The only benefit for paying per byte is the company makes more money.
There is no benefit to customers who now have to pay more for usage.
Also, do not forget that per byte billing is crazy since you have no control over the size of the websites you go to and then you can't use any streaming services like radio (xm), tv (hulu), or streaming movies (netflix).
If it is up to customers they will never charge per byte.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | quote:
The only benefit for paying per byte is the company makes more money.
There is no benefit to customers who now have to pay more for usage.
Of course the only benefit to per byte is more money for the company - kinda the reason it is in business.
If they price unlimited high enough to make a good amount more while people perceive the value is worth it - then it will be done.
So far - I have yet to see a company have all, or even a majority, of its customers leave when per byte billing has been implemented. As such - it won't be going away soon. Prices are very rarely solely up to the customer.
--
Brian
"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:I think per-byte billing is inevitable; but most companies will offer an unlimited option Yes, but as we've seen, over and over, "unlimited" is rarely unlimited in the sense that most people understand the term to mean.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | reply to CylonRed
Customers can't leave because most ISPs are monopolies and they work together with competitors to be able to charge more.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to CylonRed
said by CylonRed:So far - I have yet to see a company have all, or even a majority, of its customers leave when per byte billing has been implemented. As such - it won't be going away soon. Prices are very rarely solely up to the customer. How long you been using the internet?
Back in the mid 90s, most ISPs were charging for connect time (not bytes). Any time one or more ISPs in the area offered an unlimited connect time, people BAILED on the connect time chargers.
Then again, people used to have quite a few choices of providers in many markets. Now? There's mostly, at best, duopolies. People *can't* bail. And, even if they can, it makes no sense to do so because the two "competitors" have pretty much the same rate structures in place.
So, yeah, with the markets the way they are, now, you won't see much migration when a company does something egregious. Doesn't mean customers wouldn't leave if they had other, real options.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
·Clear Wireless
| reply to r81984
said by r81984:The problem is the cell phone companies build the network, they do not pay per byte so it makes no sense to charge customers per byte. This is one of the reasons that broadband and wireless data is lagging behind backbone infrastructure. At the carrier level you pay by commit level and 95th percentile utilization, or you pay full circuit unmetered rates. Usage-based pricing at the carrier level created a system by which escalating usage created increasing levels of cash flow which provided the necessary funding to rapidly build to meet demand.
Flat, fixed-rate pricing provides you with consistent income, but your upgrade cycles are fixed -- you don't have a rapid inflow of cash should demand outpace predicted growth, and the opportunity to fall short is ever present.
said by r81984:Also, do not forget that per byte billing is crazy since you have no control over the size of the websites you go to and then you can't use any streaming services like radio (xm), tv (hulu), or streaming movies (netflix). That's a scare tactic that's frequently thrown out, but it's not true at all. People are using these services today and ISPs are paying their upstream network providers based on usage. The cost of electricity didn't stop people from buying more electrical appliances; if a technology has merit it will still be used. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to nixen
said by nixen:Back in the mid 90s, most ISPs were charging for connect time (not bytes). Any time one or more ISPs in the area offered an unlimited connect time, people BAILED on the connect time chargers. That's because there was more money to be made selling "unlimited" services at $19.95 to the average person rather than billing the average subscriber $9/mo in usage charges. Sure, there are people that spent well above that, but the average subscriber paid much more under flat rate billing than they would otherwise.
Peace of mind is a lucrative business. Just look at all the money companies make selling "extended warranties." For every 1 person that comes out well ahead there are at least 100 people that lose money in the interest of "financial safety." |
|
