There's Still No Evidence That Metered Billing Is Necessary > In one sentence.

In one sentence.

It has been said again and again on this forum that no one is referring to true per byte billing, ONLY to disproportionately price-gouging overage charges over low caps, when it come to the idea of "metered billing" by the ISP's.

reply to AnonDOG

Congestion has always been used as a red herring to engage in anti-competitive behavior, be it Skype or a million other bogeyman. All without having to provide a shred of actual raw network data. Anyone who doesn't at least recognize the threat these models could potentially pose to the Internet either is playing willfully ignorant because they stand to profit, or they haven't really been paying attention.

reply to AnonDOG
Average use is different for everyone and every year that average rises as more website and online business become high bandwidth sites.
Using the standard deviation of usage is pointless because how much you use on the the internet is not really in control as people have no idea how much they download going to different websites.

Metered billing cannot be accurate on a TCP/IP network unless they force all users to run a program that tracks bandwidth on all of our end devices from computers to Xbox's to the refridgerator that can download recipies and video tutorials, etc. They cannot accurately track usage at the switch or modem level as anyone can send GBs of garbage data to your IP and that will count against you.
Everyone should fear metered billing, because the average usage constantly goes up. We will all be paying more with metered billing and alot of people will be screwed over by having to pay for data they never downloaded.
You will be hearing stories of how a grandmother got a $10,000 bill because of a virus on her computer

Metered billing is not fair anyways because everyone's connection costs the same if you utilize it 100% or at 0%. The wires, hardware, and interlinks are fixed costs not variable based on utilization. If you charge by utilization then those that use their connection more subsidize the network for those that do not use their connection which is simply unfair.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are.

reply to AnonDOG
Yes, but you are missing the point. In the last month, they used 5.4TB of data. BUT, the previous month, they only used 3.8TB of data. YET their COST was EXACTLY the same? Their FEAR is that the 322 users who are above average gets larger, they will need to INVEST in the infrastructure to support those users. THAT is what they are afraid of. THE COST to provide 5.4TB is EXACTLY THE SAME as the cost to provide 10TB of data, which is EXACTLY THE SAME as the cost to provide 1TB of data. The PROBLEM is when they need to provide 11TB of data, well, that will require a CAPITAL INVESTMENT, but there is no UNIT COST for a byte. Please explain how charging based on UNITS is fair, when there is no UNIT COST.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!

reply to AnonDOG
Your statistics are useless and mean nothing in this context. If you want to convince me with statistics you better bring your A game and compare apples to apples or at least try to make some baseline definitions and assumptions.

Here's an analogy:

Last month 1342 "eaters" consumed a total of 120,780,000 calories.
The average "eaters" consumed 90,000 calories.

"eaters" below average: 1019
"eaters" above average: 322

Therefore there are 322 fat ass pigs who eat too much and 1019 dieters.

reply to AnonDOG

reply to badtrip

said by badtrip:

Your statistics are useless and mean nothing in this context. If you want to convince me with statistics you better bring your A game and compare apples to apples or at least try to make some baseline definitions and assumptions.

Here's an analogy:

Last month 1342 "eaters" consumed a total of 120,780,000 calories.
The average "eaters" consumed 90,000 calories.

"eaters" below average: 1019
"eaters" above average: 322

Therefore there are 322 fat ass pigs who eat too much and 1019 dieters.

reply to R4M0N

said by R4M0N:

said by AnonDOG :

The only people who fear metered billing are people who believe their bill will go up with metered billing.

Or people who understand where this is going in the future even if their bills do not change under metered billing.



I'm not a heavy user by any means but I do understand that once metered billing is implemented in the name of penalizing the "hogs", the next step will be to tweak it for maximum profit by constantly redefining the meaning of "hog".

One only needs to look that the pricing scheme of text messaging to realize how bad it could get.

reply to AnonDOG

reply to Matt
And why are we feeding this troll? He is anon for a reason..no?
--
»davescustompc.com

He runs a WISP.

reply to jimbopalmer
Your bill will never be $0 as long as you have a connection. There's an inherent cost of providing service to you whether you use it or not. And if you really pay $0 for no use of electricity/water while you actually have a connection, then consider yourself extremely fortunate.

reply to openbox9

reply to Karl Bode
Agreed Karl, and the divide seems to be between businessmen who want profit, and network engineers who want to build better networks, and nary the two will ever meet. Oil and water as far as the "perfect ISP net" is concerned.

Oh and the users, who fund all of this, well they can just sit there and eat dirt.

reply to AnonDOG
On the contrary, I go well under any sort of cap but I think EVERYONE can see that these companies are looking for ways to over-charge, over-charge, and over-charge whenever they can.

If this type of system gets in and everyone starts using it, I wouldn't be shocked to see ANOTHER step put in to charge us even more....whether it is adding 2nd fees for going over by X amount (a small amount over the cap can be a 2nd tier fee) or some other thought

The road it leads down scares me and my future bill

reply to openbox9

We've had this discussion before. I don't believe you can assume that just because you receive a discount for purchasing multiple services, that the discount is the base cost of extending a cable to your house.