 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | Sorry but... I just can't take the entirely negative attitude towards this that the above editorial does.
I think for starters..it can be argued that broadband these days is absurdly inexpensive....COMPARED to what it used to be.
Is anyone with me on recalling the several hundred dollar per month dial up bills we used to pay and where a 28.8 dial up modem was something we waited breathlessly for to come out?
I mean..we are light years away from those days..at 1/10th the costs in some cases. (at least my case from those compuserve bills I used to receive).
And, we are continually seeing speeds increases and in the case of Comcast ....2 times the speeds being rolled out as the standard tier..at no additional cost from where the flat rate pricing has stood for years now.
And..we have all witnessed on this site how the heavy users cry even when 250 ~400 gig caps are imposed on them.
The question is..what is fair? Whether it's AT&T ..Verizon..comcast or whomever...these are companies in the business to make money. They are not charity organizations. They are companies who collectively spent billions and billions of dollars rolling out these networks. And today..they give us 1000's of times the speeds..at fractions of the cost that these things used to be for consumers.
A 42.95 per month service..costs a consumer One DOLLAR and 43 cents per day. For unlimited service. Who..and what..in this world..offers THAT kind of value..for THAT small a price?
Save 3 stamps a day..and you paid for that by emailing instead.
Everywhere we look..the internet can save us. From shopping online..to price comparisons..to emailing...to whatever.
I bought my last residence at a great price because of the internet..and the resources it brought to my fingertips. And that saved me tens of thousands of dollars. As I did a vehicle off ebay motors..saving thousands more. But yet..the companies that make it happen aren't supposed to make a profit? And 1.50 or 2.00 a day is ...too much?
I think it's the biggest bargain of the century. And nothing less than that. From videos to emailing to the countless hours on BBR to all the entertainment there is out there on the WWW..
from online banking to brokerages to shopping to everything else..the net has become our right hand. Indespensible..but yet..for some..it's not viewed as being worth..a dollar fifty a day?
That cigarette they smoke is though..or that hamburger at mcd's..or cup of coffee which costs MORE than this is though.
Sorry..but I just think that some have their priorities not in order..and have failed to consider the value that is our internet connections.
I..for one..don't think that average consumers should have to pay for those who want to use 250 gigs a month and more.
I think that THEY should pay for that. And..I think it should be available to them to do so. I ALSO don't think that average consumers should somehow expect to pay LESS than they do now under a per gigabyte billing system..because I think it's already priced very fairly for what it is. I think..it all boils down to ...people already get a LOT for their money. And, those who want more..should pay for it. But..for everyone else..whether it's a 1000k dsl connection for 20 bucks..or a cable connection for 42.95..I think people get their monies worth many times over. And....if you don't think so..then maybe you never lived through the early 1990's..or forgot what life was like back then compared to now.
~Rick
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
 aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by Rick:I just can't take the entirely negative attitude towards this that the above editorial does. I think for starters..it can be argued that broadband these days is absurdly inexpensive....COMPARED to what it used to be. Is anyone with me on recalling the several hundred dollar per month dial up bills we used to pay and where a 28.8 dial up modem was something we waited breathlessly for to come out? I mean..we are light years away from those days..at 1/10th the costs in some cases. (at least my case from those compuserve bills I used to receive). And, we are continually seeing speeds increases and in the case of Comcast ....2 times the speeds being rolled out as the standard tier..at no additional cost from where the flat rate pricing has stood for years now. And..we have all witnessed on this site how the heavy users cry even when 250 ~400 gig caps are imposed on them. The question is..what is fair? Whether it's AT&T ..Verizon..comcast or whomever...these are companies in the business to make money. They are not charity organizations. They are companies who collectively spent billions and billions of dollars rolling out these networks. And today..they give us 1000's of times the speeds..at fractions of the cost that these things used to be for consumers. A 42.95 per month service..costs a consumer One DOLLAR and 43 cents per day. For unlimited service. Who..and what..in this world..offers THAT kind of value..for THAT small a price? Save 3 stamps a day..and you paid for that by emailing instead. Everywhere we look..the internet can save us. From shopping online..to price comparisons..to emailing...to whatever. I bought my last residence at a great price because of the internet..and the resources it brought to my fingertips. And that saved me tens of thousands of dollars. As I did a vehicle off ebay motors..saving thousands more. But yet..the companies that make it happen aren't supposed to make a profit? And 1.50 or 2.00 a day is ...too much? I think it's the biggest bargain of the century. And nothing less than that. From videos to emailing to the countless hours on BBR to all the entertainment there is out there on the WWW.. from online banking to brokerages to shopping to everything else..the net has become our right hand. Indespensible..but yet..for some..it's not viewed as being worth..a dollar fifty a day? That cigarette they smoke is though..or that hamburger at mcd's..or cup of coffee which costs MORE than this is though. Sorry..but I just think that some have their priorities not in order..and have failed to consider the value that is our internet connections. I..for one..don't think that average consumers should have to pay for those who want to use 250 gigs a month and more. I think that THEY should pay for that. And..I think it should be available to them to do so. I ALSO don't think that average consumers should somehow expect to pay LESS than they do now under a per gigabyte billing system..because I think it's already priced very fairly for what it is. I think..it all boils down to ...people already get a LOT for their money. And, those who want more..should pay for it. But..for everyone else..whether it's a 1000k dsl connection for 20 bucks..or a cable connection for 42.95..I think people get their monies worth many times over. And....if you don't think so..then maybe you never lived through the early 1990's..or forgot what life was like back then compared to now. ~Rick Where did the arbitrary 250GB number come from. Some people might think 100GB makes more sense, while might think 50GB, or 500GB makes more sense.
Personally 250GB is too low, especially if you have a family that is online regulary streaming video, which is becoming the norm more and more every day. |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
4 edits | reply to Rick
It is no bargin and you are thinking about it all wrong.
The costs of running a network are all basically fixed.
Fiber, Cables, Hardware, How many Watts the equipment uses, modems.
How much you utilize your connection does not change the cost for the ISP. It cost the same for them if you download 2 GB a month or 400 GB a month.
The days of paying by the minute were when the internet was a fun toy, no dedicated connection, and not a utility, now it is a utility (communication, work at home, pay bills, having a business online, etc). In those days many people had phone lines, now many people have internet and their customers are consistent.
This means they can divide their fixed costs up and set a fair price for each connection regardless of utilization.
All they want for this metered billing is to set the price to where most pay will end up paying the same they do with the flat billing, but then cannot increase their utilization. Then what will happens is the many, many people will end up paying a lot more a month. In the end no one will really save money and some people end up paying more. Metered billing just makes no sense for a fixed cost network.
Why don't they have metered billing for TV. Divide my $55 a month by the 60 channels I get then divide that by the time I watch them. (I can only watch one channel at a time).
I would only end up paying about 10 cents a month. If I am not utilizing it why should I pay for it, right???
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | reply to Rick
Rick,
Sorry, but this move is all about capping usage. None of us will see lower bills, and a few customers that transfer tons of data will either pay a lot more, or they will have to reduce their bandwidth consumption.
Metered billing, as the ISP's would implement it, is all about controlling their pipes and preventing any bandwidth intensive applications from taking root. Any tier that they come up with will most certainly follow a similar pattern that they use for their TV service. Sure, there might be a cheaper plan available, but they make sure to omit features/channels that put a majority of their customers into a more expensive plan.
This is just a fancy, indirect method to increase rates while implementing caps. |
|
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by jmn1207:Rick, Sorry, but this move is all about capping usage. None of us will see lower bills, and a few customers that transfer tons of data will either pay a lot more, or they will have to reduce their bandwidth consumption. Not in Verizon's case. Verizon HAS THE NETWORK and, having made that investment, it is uncongested. Usage could double and Verizon wouldn't break a sweat.
This is about improving ARPU.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ |
|
| reply to aaronwt
Hows the kool aid taste? You argue that you dont want to pay for those who 250 gigs a month, so you think your bill will be lower than what it is now? I would bet it would go up. You say you use the internet for videos, emailing, and you even bought a car off ebay, how much do you use in a month? With some of the low CAPs being thrown around, you could already be a "bandwith hog". The current business models already net the ISPs billions yes billions of PROFIT! But they see the writing on the wall with video delivery services cutting into their TV profits, so they are just finding new ways to bill you in the name of network capacity. |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19
 ·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Rick
metered billing is the new "hourly charge". thats what you were referring to with the compuserve bill. you were getting an insane bill every month because of the # of hours you were online. thing is, now the connection is always on. so they have to find another way to hand out the insanely high bills. either way its pro-consumer.
the amount you use your connection has no correlation with the cost to run it. if it does, then the network is oversold in which case I would run away from them to begin with.
there is only one reason to introduce metered billing, to allow the isps to continue to oversell their service without improving the infrastructure of their network.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps |
|
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to Rick
You're definitely in the minority on this one. And you should be.
Or do you think it would be OK for a dealership to charge you more for your next car, based upon how many miles you plan to drive? Or for a home seller to charge you more, based upon how many people you plan to have living in your house? Or for tolls to be higher on roads, based upon the number of people riding in your car?
The Internet is not some vastly limited resource, and the ISPs costs don't vary by all that much whether you use 1GB/month or 1TB/month. Caps and tiered pricing are just ways for ISPs to disguise price increases for the majority of their users in a "fairness" doctrine... and you've taken the bait hook, line, and sinker.
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| reply to funchords
All the costs on a network are basically fixed.
Wiring, routers, hardware, kilowatt hours the devices use.
(nothing is variable to network untilization)
Fixed pricing for each connection and customer contracts garauntees them a return to pay for costs which investors like.
The only way they will go to metered billings is to gaurantee to the board of directors that the change will only make them more money and it will never make them less.
What will happen is everyone's monthly bill will either stay the same or go up.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
| reply to NOVA_Guy
said by NOVA_Guy: and you've taken the bait hook, line, and sinker. Don't be fooled, Rick here is the one holding the fishing rod.
He directly benefits from us paying more so his opinions should be "heard" with that in mind. |
|
cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | reply to r81984
You forgot to add the cost of the people to maintain the network which does usually go up every year since most employees like and expect raises.
Sharholders also expect x return every year for the money invested. The only way for that share price to go up is for a company to increase revenue. The only way for company to increase revenue is to offer more services or raise the prices of services already offered or budget cuts(employee layoffs,less capital expenditures).
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:Rick, Sorry, but this move is all about capping usage. None of us will see lower bills, and a few customers that transfer tons of data will either pay a lot more, or they will have to reduce their bandwidth consumption. The trend suggests otherwise. My internet/broadband costs have been steadily declining year-over-year, even before adjusting for inflation. Metered usage will only reduce my cost further. If you believe TWC's data, at least 30% of broadband users would see lower bills.
VZ is again offering broadband 1M DSL for less than $10/month net, down from $60 for 256K. Cable internet has followed a similar path in a shorter history, speed tripling and price cut in half.
Metered billing is not a threat. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | reply to Rick
I don't agree with Karl's idea of what is fair.
He says:
"Fairness" would involve all customers actually paying only for what they use under a pure per-byte billing model. He leaves out that there are costs involved even if the customer moves only 1 byte of data or none. So there is a basic cost + traffic model that is fair. Exactly what the breakdown is is subject to debate. Is $5/mo for a connection and then so much for GB a fair method. Or is that $10/mo, etc.
I pay a connection fee for water & electricity even if I don't use 1 gal or 1 watt in a month.
So let's discuss what is a good connection cost and what is a good usage charge for service. The idea that if you don't use the internet for a month and you pay nothing is absurd.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
2 edits | reply to caco
said by caco:You forgot to add the cost of the people to maintain the network which does usually go up every year since most employees like and expect raises. Sharholders also expect x return every year for the money invested. The only way for that share price to go up is for a company to increase revenue. The only way for company to increase revenue is to offer more services or raise the prices of services already offered or budget cuts(employee layoffs,less capital expenditures). Costs are not variable to utilization.
You are right that workers get raises, so that is already factored into the fixed costs. Most companies have standard increases and the only way to jump much higher is to take a new position.
If the fixed costs go up due to more workers needed, electricity rate increases, etc. then they need to increase the flat rate fee not come up with some meter billing approach to get people to pay substantially more. There is making a fair profit from your broadband monopoly and then there is price gouging now that people have no choice or only 1 other choice.
We all should pay the same price for the connection regardless if we use it or not. The cost go with the connection not with utilization.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
1 edit | reply to elray
Re: Sorry but... Nobody is interested in capping such low speed tiers, as these are absolutely no threat to an ISP becoming a dumb pipe. It's with Verizon's FiOS service where they would even possibly consider imposing metered billing. Verizon can set a limit that is initially quite high, affecting only a tiny percentage of their customer base, but it serves to place a moratorium on any further technical advances, while slicing away the heaviest data users, or at least making them very lucrative customers.
I see this happening with most oligopolies, in the same fashion that has happened with the oil companies. Metered billing will go a long way toward stifling any new technology from having any kind of success or legitimately competing against features offered by the ISP in the future. I have no idea what might be around the corner, but we have no hope of ever finding out if we are frozen by metered billing plans that will be price adjusted to make sure everyone uses only as much as Verizon will allow.
Clearly they have not stumbled upon anything out there, yet, that might need to be controlled in this measure, which is why we haven't seen this put in effect. But they certainly want to keep this in their back pocket for when this moment might appear. Right now there may not be anything out there that metered billing could take advantage of, at least without getting the FCC to take notice. But until this pesky net neutrality talk is squashed, or they come up with a new workaround, Verizon is going to be content to hold off and wait, for now. |
|
aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to nunyabiz
said by nunyabiz :
Hows the kool aid taste? You argue that you dont want to pay for those who 250 gigs a month, so you think your bill will be lower than what it is now? I would bet it would go up. You say you use the internet for videos, emailing, and you even bought a car off ebay, how much do you use in a month? With some of the low CAPs being thrown around, you could already be a "bandwith hog". The current business models already net the ISPs billions yes billions of PROFIT! But they see the writing on the wall with video delivery services cutting into their TV profits, so they are just finding new ways to bill you in the name of network capacity.
You must be talking about someone else. I never bought a car off Ebay and I use 1TB to 3TB each month with my FIOS connection. |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to Rick
Computers are absurly inexpensive... COMPARED to what they used to be.
We should pay more for computers! |
|
 jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | reply to Romney2012
said by Romney2012:So let's discuss what is a good connection cost and what is a good usage charge for service. The idea that if you don't use the internet for a month and you pay nothing is absurd. Funny, I didn't see anywhere in Karl's post where he even hinted that non-usage meant you didn't pay anything. He is spot-on that a metered billing should be a pure per-byte billing model. The only one who absurdly interpreted this this into 'If you don't use the internet for a month you shouldn't pay nothing' was you.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Engineer * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * |
|
RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:said by NOVA_Guy: and you've taken the bait hook, line, and sinker. Don't be fooled, Rick here is the one holding the fishing rod. He directly benefits from us paying more so his opinions should be "heard" with that in mind. LoL...nothing like a good conspiracy theory from someone who doesn't know me from Adam to liven up a thread.
But..yea..you're right. I do benefit from per gigabyte billing. I'm the gatekeeper to all the isp's and everything you send I get a cut of.
Nice detective work figuring me out. 
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
