 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue »AT&T: iPhone Data Pricing Comments 'Taken Out Of Context'AT&T is eager to impose an unpopular usage-based billing model on both their wireless and wireline networks -- simply because it generates more revenue than flat rate pricing. Karl keeps repeating this OVER & OVER, as if saying it constantly makes it true. Well, it isn't true. Usage based billing is ALSO about modifying customer behavior to be cognizant of what resources they consume and to recognize there are costs involved in massive usage. And the costs aren't merely monetary. They are also about delivering a good service and a consistent service. So Karl, it isn't SIMPLY about more money.
If AT&T had gone to usage billing BEFORE they rolled out the iPhone, we wouldn't be reading now about slow downloads & uploads, and disconnected calls, etc. Because the bandwidth hogs(yes I said it - bandwidth hogs) would have modified their behavior to save money.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
| Umm, YES, it IS simply about more money. You said 'there are costs involved in massive usage'. How do you offset costs? Oh, wait, you try and get MORE MONEY. The problem of course, is that the COST is a CAPITAL OUTLAY, NOT a UNIT COST. Repeat after me. There is no cost to move a byte of data. Period. The only cost involved in moving a byte of data is electricity (negligible), support (again, negligible), and CAPITAL (expensive). But, once you've invested the CAPITAL, the operational cost is effectively ZERO. If AT&T had gone to usage based billing BEFORE they rolled out the iphone, guess what, they wouldn't have SOLD many. So, which one do you want? Do you want them to sell a lot of phones, or do you want them to use usage billing? You seem to think that AT&T gets to keep it's cake and eat it too. But you are wrong.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | I was going to reply but KM said it all.
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~ |
|
 doc69Premium
join:2004-08-01
 ·Insight Communic..
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:» AT&T: iPhone Data Pricing Comments 'Taken Out Of Context'AT&T is eager to impose an unpopular usage-based billing model on both their wireless and wireline networks -- simply because it generates more revenue than flat rate pricing. Karl keeps repeating this OVER & OVER, as if saying it constantly makes it true. Well, it isn't true. Usage based billing is ALSO about modifying customer behavior to be cognizant of what resources they consume and to recognize there are costs involved in massive usage. And the costs aren't merely monetary. They are also about delivering a good service and a consistent service. So Karl, it isn't SIMPLY about more money. If AT&T had gone to usage billing BEFORE they rolled out the iPhone, we wouldn't be reading now about slow downloads & uploads, and disconnected calls, etc. Because the bandwidth hogs(yes I said it - bandwidth hogs) would have modified their behavior to save money. Bullshit!!! It's because they want more money plain & simple!! Put a 10gig cap & leave it at that. Why would they want to go to Usage based billing??? Money Money Money Money Money!!!! Any other idea besides this is total BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
I'll keep my God, my freedom, my guns, and my money. You can keep "THE CHANGE." |
|
| reply to Linklist
It is about money. Is 20 -30 cent / per text message about controlling bandwidth or about controlling revenue? It will always be about money (period)
They know perfectly well that if this darth vader plan ever goes through, nothing will change bandwidth wise. Everthing is moving to faster pipes and you will need it to get what you want.
Trust me if they were losing money, they would have sold the business a long time ago. |
|
|
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx: Repeat after me. There is no cost to move a byte of data. Period. But, once you've invested the CAPITAL, the operational cost is effectively ZERO. Repeat after me. YOU ARE WRONG. And saying your error over and over again doesn't make it correct. There is costs to moving data. |
|
| said by Linklist:said by karlmarx: Repeat after me. There is no cost to move a byte of data. Period. But, once you've invested the CAPITAL, the operational cost is effectively ZERO. Repeat after me. YOU ARE WRONG. And saying your error over and over again doesn't make it correct. There is costs to moving data. I dont agree with the per byte billing method, but TK is correct there is a cost somewhere, though in some cases it isnt as much as you would think.
Each tower has to have a backhual of some method, weather it be a crapton of t1's (that att pays themself for), some kind of metro-e fiber circuit (verizon uses charter in some places for exmaple) or some microwave link (captital expense). |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:Usage based billing is ALSO about modifying customer behavior to be cognizant of what resources they consume and to recognize there are costs involved in massive usage. And the costs aren't merely monetary. They are also about delivering a good service and a consistent service. So Karl, it isn't SIMPLY about more money. If AT&T had gone to usage billing BEFORE they rolled out the iPhone, we wouldn't be reading now about slow downloads & uploads, and disconnected calls, etc. Because the bandwidth hogs(yes I said it - bandwidth hogs) would have modified their behavior to save money. I agree. AT&T is largely to blame on this one (along with their agreement with Apple), that they were so eager to sell those iPhones, they even forced a 2 year data agreement (typically, other devices, you CAN switch to a plain phone and cancel data, or go to a cheaper data plan). With this push to sell phones, they were able to sell iPhones for $99, which is cheaper than probably half of the phones they're currently selling. Forcing the data plan, and then coming back later with a 'too much consumption is bad' approach is not a good approach. As you have mentioned... they should have used a model like in Canada... 5 or 6GB, especially once they offered a 3G version.
For this reason alone, I'd like to see someone like T-Mobile deploy the iPhone (most likely carrier on GSM/HSPA). Competition in this case might make AT&T reconsider. |
|
 badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:Usage based billing is ALSO about modifying customer behavior to be cognizant of what resources they consume and to recognize there are costs involved in massive usage. And the costs aren't merely monetary. They are also about delivering a good service and a consistent service. So Karl, it isn't SIMPLY about more money. It's ALWAYS about money. There's no if ands or buts about it. EVERYTHING in the business world equates to money somewhere along the line. If AT&T didn't clean their employee bathrooms for a week, they'd have taken that step to save money.
If AT&T wanted to truly "educate" their customers regarding the impacts of data usage, why didn't they START with a usage based model instead of a flat rate model for the iPhone? AT&T certainly isn't a new and naive ISP. I highly doubt everyone at AT&T was SHOCKED and SURPRISED that folks would actually use data on the iPhone.
This is a bait and switch, plain and simple. AT&T THINKS they have a captive audience with the iPhone. They are wrong. When I asked iPhone users today what they'd do if AT&T adopted usage based billing, every single one said they'd drop their plan. |
|
| reply to Linklist
NO, repeat after ME. Apart from electricity and support, the ONLY cost is CAPITAL. HOW do I know this? Let's see, I BUILD NETWORKS. Once we pay for the switches and routers, the only cost we have is electricity. PERIOD. Yes, maintenance contracts, but again, those are CAPITAL costs. It cost me EXACTLY the same to move 100TB of data as it does to move 1GB of data. The DIFFERENCE, is that I had to use CAPITAL to build a network that could move 100TB of data. If I built a network to move 1GB of data, my CAPITAL cost would be a lot less, but my operational cost would be EXACTLY THE SAME. THUS, there is no COST to move data, only the capital outlay. AT&T does not want to spend the CAPITAL to provide the ability to move 100TB of data, so they try and place the blame on the cost of moving data, but they are LYING.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Linklist
The sad part, is that until there is a 'lower tier', there is no incentive to have users consume less.
I'd take a 500MB or 1GB or even PPU plan on an iPhone, however, AT&T offers only buffet style all you can eat, and forces a 2 year commitment on it.
I would be happy if they offered:
1. PPU or WiFi only (free?)
2. 500MB for $15/month
3. 5GB for $25/month
4. 10GB for $35/month
5. 50GB for $50/month
While I do expect at some point a consumption based billing, until they make the base amount less than the current (they WILL be offering less, after all), there's little incentive from a customer base.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:» AT&T: iPhone Data Pricing Comments 'Taken Out Of Context'If AT&T had gone to usage billing BEFORE they rolled out the iPhone, we wouldn't be reading now about slow downloads & uploads, and disconnected calls, etc. Because the bandwidth hogs(yes I said it - bandwidth hogs) would have modified their behavior to save money. Excuse me for using my phone with it's intended features. If im using my phone legally with legal apps on an unlimited plan, its that simple they only person in the wrong is att for not delvering.
If it wasn't for the heavy users who embrace new tech fast, ATT wouln't be making any $$ on selling 3g in the first place.
Grandma was not the reason att built out a 3g network, but if 3g is only for grandma this makes no sense. It seems were always thinking about the poor people who don't use data that pay $30 a month. Why on earth do that have a smart phone in the first place?!?! |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:I BUILD NETWORKS. Yes, maintenance contracts, but again, those are CAPITAL costs. LOL. Go back to school. Maintenance contracts are NOT capital costs. They are operating costs. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to en102
said by en102:The sad part, is that until there is a 'lower tier', there is no incentive to have users consume less. That is implied in moving to a usage based plan. You pay less if you consume less.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
 Jovi
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA | reply to Linklist
"Data Plan for iPhone includes unlimited data in the U.S. Access rich HTML email and desktop-level web browsing, as well as Visual Voicemail to listen to voicemail messages in any order you choose."
The above taken directly from AT&T's website. There is no heavy users on an unlimited data plan. End of story. Unlimited is just that.
As it stands now, don't cry when you advertise one thing and people use it as such.
--
"Some people have no respect for logic."  |
|
| reply to Linklist
Hmm. I have a degree in Accounting from Syracuse. A 5 year maintenance contract purchased the same time as the equipment is amortized over 5 years. In fact, in our ASSETS, we list the value remaining on the maintenance contracts. The capital is consumed over the course of the year. They are an EXPENSE when the year is up, but they are NOT an operating cost. Operating costs are the cost to maintain the network, not replacement of capital equipment.
Please reply once you get a degree in accounting.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to Jovi
said by Jovi:"Data Plan for iPhone includes unlimited data in the U.S. Access rich HTML email and desktop-level web browsing, as well as Visual Voicemail to listen to voicemail messages in any order you choose." The above taken directly from AT&T's website. There is no heavy users on an unlimited data plan. End of story. Unlimited is just that. As it stands now, don't cry when you advertise one thing and people use it as such. Maybe that is why they are THINKING of changing. And they must changes ads when they do.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
| reply to Linklist
You pay less if you consume less. So wait, who's repeating things in a strange effort to magically make them true again? |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Linklist
Well, in theory, it should. I'd suspect, like many things the bottom line won't be any less.. they'll just throw in a few items to appease us.
I.e. the $30 will still be the cheapest data available, however, with 5GB cap, but we'll toss in 200 free txt messages/month.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Karl Bode
LOL - its a general rule of business.
I think its more of 'you pay less/item if you consume less'. Your total bottom line will not be lowered.
If this was the case, I'd have an iPhone on pay per use billing running WiFi 99% of the time, saving +$300/year.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
