how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
271 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| Several problems. 1. Moving to usage based billing doesnt actually make it cheaper for the light users. They are still paying a flat-fee for a service by definition they dont use. Furthermore the move from plain unlimited flat fee to extremely low cap; actually serves no actual savings.
2. They have no reason to put a stop to any sort of flood traffic. For example; as the ISP I can take my list of people with a cap of 2 gigs and flood ping them all month. 1mbit upload speed could cap out dozens of people within a month. Too which only means more money for that ISP. It doesnt even matter what traffic it is.
So what you do as an ISP. Setup a 1gigabit connection to basically flood your entire ip space. You just made tons and tons of cash.
Or simply have inaccurate meters.
3. They have been regulated; or rather forced to provide wholesale competition at price X; without forcing your competition in the same usage based billing, free market corrects itself. Except with so little competition in Canada... they can get away with charging just about any price they want. As who can actually live without the internet? | |
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by munky99999:1. Moving to usage based billing doesnt actually make it cheaper for the light users. They are still paying a flat-fee for a service by definition they dont use. Furthermore the move from plain unlimited flat fee to extremely low cap; actually serves no actual savings. Nonsense. TWC's rate proposed a $15.00 fee for 1GB cap. The current "basic" access rate is more than double that. We would save more than $200 a year under their plan. As would my folks, my sister, brother, and half the in-laws. | |
| said by elray:said by munky99999:1. Moving to usage based billing doesnt actually make it cheaper for the light users. They are still paying a flat-fee for a service by definition they dont use. Furthermore the move from plain unlimited flat fee to extremely low cap; actually serves no actual savings. Nonsense. TWC's rate proposed a $15.00 fee for 1GB cap. The current "basic" access rate is more than double that. We would save more than $200 a year under their plan. As would my folks, my sister, brother, and half the in-laws. Then what overage fees? Regardless...
If you use less then 1 GB cap... you arent using the service. So they pretty much are being billed for service they dont use. The background noise of the internet can generate a fair bit of traffic. So they pretty much cant even have their net connection turned on all the time. Let alone using that cap.
Regardless. I'm still going to call shananigans on you; I feel pretty good in saying you are somehow an employee or similar to an ISP and are trying to get this pushed in. | |
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by munky99999:said by elray:Nonsense. TWC's rate proposed a $15.00 fee for 1GB cap. The current "basic" access rate is more than double that. We would save more than $200 a year under their plan. As would my folks, my sister, brother, and half the in-laws. If you use less then 1 GB cap... you arent using the service. So they pretty much are being billed for service they dont use. Regardless. I'm still going to call shananigans on you; I feel pretty good in saying you are somehow an employee or similar to an ISP and are trying to get this pushed in. Uh, no. I kick myself sometimes for not investing in these "evil" firms when they're down, but no, I have nothing to gain except as a consumer. But thanks for resorting to the usual refuge of a scoundrel, and calling me an industry shill, rather than discussing the actual merits (or lack of) of the case.
In a system where usage, capacity, and demand are a factor, and with cable modems and internet in general, they are, how is it "fair" to charge low-volume users the same price as high-volume users?
We seriously don't use 1GB. Mom doesn't turn on her PC but once a week. My sister doesn't either. We all want an "always on", reliable connection, as provided by cable modems or DSL, but the data volumes and speed requirements are a fraction of that used by the typical "power user" found here.
I'm not cheering for caps, just for a structure that has a very low cost, entry-level tier. I think, in the end, telco and cableco will offer both capped and unlimited plans, but you'll have to pay a premium for unlimited bandwidth, and it will be throttled. | |
| quote:
In a system where usage, capacity, and demand are a factor, and with cable modems and internet in general, they are, how is it "fair" to charge low-volume users the same price as high-volume users?
Charging a flat fee of any kind to your example of people who dont use the internet at all isnt fair. They are basically pocketing your money,
Moreover; comparing someone who doesnt use the product to someone who does... is basically apple-orange comparison. You cant take an example of a customer being scammed already and then say OMG NOTFAIR; I DEMAND EVERYONE BE SCAMMED EQUALLY.
quote:
We seriously don't use 1GB. Mom doesn't turn on her PC but once a week. My sister doesn't either. We all want an "always on", reliable connection, as provided by cable modems or DSL, but the data volumes and speed requirements are a fraction of that used by the typical "power user" found here.
Except it's pretty well known that the bandwidth monitors are brutally inaccurate. Having such a slow cap basically says... come reem us. Them saying you downloaded 3 gigs instead of 500megs. 10$ more please. Now you have to pay... prove you didnt download. You cant.
Add in the profit driven factor of an anonymous stock holder who can get a 50$ vps and flood the hell out of your ISP's ip space. Your ISP who now gets money from being a bad isp and not blocking floods like that... Isnt going to do anything.
quote:
I'm not cheering for caps, just for a structure that has a very low cost, entry-level tier. I think, in the end, telco and cableco will offer both capped and unlimited plans, but you'll have to pay a premium for unlimited bandwidth, and it will be throttled.
Um no. In the end there will be competition popping up who destroys any isp who wants to create caps. The usa has fios. japan and similar small countries have their capless 100mbit internet connections.
You're a fool if you think this oligopoly pricing scheme will last beyond 5-10 years. | |
|
