 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to jimbopalmer
Re: Per-Byte Billing Is Neither Necessary Nor Inevitable said by jimbopalmer:I would be perfectly happy with per byte billing so long as the meter starts at $0.00 and then measures my usage. I have no interest in measured rates in addition to my flat rate. This is not a logical method. There needs to be be a minimal flat rate for your connection and a metered rate for the USE of the connection. No matter how much or little you use, there is still a cost for the ability to use the connection that you need to pay. When the metered (or capped) plans are talked about, the fixed and variable costs are commingled to mess up the analysis. The poster up-thread who asked for a rebate or roll-over for under use has the right idea in the commingled method. You are paying the fixed fee and a lump sum for the first x units of use. Thus if you do not use all of your paid for usage it SHOULD be rolled over to the next period (with periodic rebates that wipe out the rolled-over credits but charging you just the base fixed fee for the month).
If you look at the prices for having both Cable TV and Internet you will find that you are giving a $5-10 discount for having both. This means that by their own prices the fixed cost of that connection (with no use) is the $5-10. Thus you should be required to pay this amount JUST TO be able to use the internet and then get billed extra for your usage.
To use an analogy look at your car. You pay a registration fee (Fixed Cost) on the car for having a car to drive. You then pay a variable fee (based on how far you drive it and your cars MPG) when you buy gas for the car. |
|
1 edit | ISP shouldn't charge for this. They want us as a customer. That is simply the cost of doing business. Next thing you know we will all have to start paying every company in our area because there is a wire or pipe to our homes. I mean, someone needs to maintain those pipes and wires....
All of this should be in the price of the service...
Remember, customers care about the bottom line... |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to RARPSL
While I agree that a fixed base charge is reasonable and correct, charging based upon GBs downloaded is not related to the ISPs costs( so the car analogy fails here). Both transit costs and hardware costs are entirely based upon peak Mbps. Any GBs downloaded during non peak hours incurs no additional costs for the ISP, yet they want to charge for them. Since their costs are related to peak Mbps and their (current) tiers are priced by Mbps, the current situation(flat rate) is fair. IF they temporarily need to handle traffic issues during peak hours they can implement proticol agnostic throttling such as what Comcast uses(again temporarily, during peak hours, until capacity can be upgraded). Just look at the ISP's filings, they are not even close to loosing money on the internet side. |
|
jimbopalmerTsar of all the Rushers
join:2008-06-02
Greenwood, MS
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Windjammer Cable
| reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL:said by jimbopalmer:I would be perfectly happy with per byte billing so long as the meter starts at $0.00 and then measures my usage. I have no interest in measured rates in addition to my flat rate. This is not a logical method. There needs to be be a minimal flat rate for your connection and a metered rate for the USE of the connection. No matter how much or little you use, there is still a cost for the ability to use the connection that you need to pay. I assure you that both my electricity bill and water bill are 100% based on usage. If I use electricity or water I pay for it, if I don't I don't. The ISPs want HUGE flat rates AND per byte billing. I am happy with flat rate OR per byte billing, but not both.
--
I tried to remain child-like, all I achieved was childish. |
|
|
|
