|reply to Thaler |
Re: Their own fault..
ISPs just need to learn to do math. Previously they banked on average usage just being a few hours of email, websurfing, chat and the occasional video.
What they didn't count on is customers actually using the advertised speeds for 4-5 hours per night to watch TV/movies.
What they need to do is remove "unlimited" packages. Just like voice cell phone services, they need to educate users as to how much they need and sell different tiered usages to customers. The customers then pay for what they need.
Just want web, email, and occasional video? Get the $30 package. Want to watch 4-5 hours of TV/movies per day (and if you have multiple people in the home that is only going to multiply)? Then you need to pay an extra $10 per some GB a month. Shoot, even let people "trail" the service for the $30/month rate to see what their average bandwidth usage is.
Then the market will compete and get the price down as much as they can afford to, and customers will shuffle to where the ISPs can handle them. Things will take a bit to settle out, and as things continue to consume more bandwidth and networks are built out things will continue to self-adjust.
When I can hit my "unlimited" cap in 10 days, something is broken. Another part of the brokenness is that I cannot see my usage on most ISPs that practice this. They need more useful information available.
One thing I'd like to see is more decentralization of the internet and tier 2/3 localized providers that peer directly with each other and keep the traffic local (therefore cheaper).
Further, ISPs need to engage large streaming services to allow them to have rack space at their regional POPs to lighten the load of traffic on their backbones.
It's only going to get worse as more and more content is available online. Once all the major sports are streamed, all the guys at my office will switch off their dish/cable.
Los Angeles, CA
said by jjroysdon :Man, I hope that's not what you expect people to pay. If I were limited to only using my internet for the same set of features I had access to on dial-up, I'd expect to pay dial-up prices (ie. $10/month). There's no way in hell I'd pay beyond $20 a month if all I could access is HTTP & YouTube clips.
Just want web, email, and occasional video? Get the $30 package.
That's the problem with many of the proponents of usage-based-billing: its only seen as a way to increase profit, not actually pay for services used. I'll be happy to pay rates based on my "fair share" of broadband utilization. However, if I reduce my internet usage and my bill doesn't drop to match, then I call shenanigans.