dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2575
share rss forum feed


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

A UBB plan can be designed to be revenue neutral

A UBB plan can be designed to be revenue neutral now while riding the upside of growing traffic. That is, the per byte billing rate can be set such that they make no more or no less than what they bring in now. But as traffic continues to grow as more and more users start streaming video, they can ride that to higher revenue. And that higher revenue can be used to both expand infrastructure and create higher profits.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml



Abbot7

@apexcovantage.com
Can never tell if serious or trolling.

A UBB plan can be designed to be revenue neutral now while riding the upside of growing traffic. That is, the per byte billing rate can be set such that they make no more or no less than what they bring in now.

Which they would never, ever do. If they did, it would be just to sell sheople on the idea right before jacking up the overage rates. Then jacking them up twice a year "for utility."


JasonOD

@comcast.net
reply to FFH5
I just want Comcast to start charging something, anything, for overages. Right now they're walking away from money.

Kicking higher use customers off or sending them to Comcast's business class product (which is an abuse of that service) isn't the answer now that they are fully DOCSIS 3.

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
I agree that they shouldn't kick them off. They should "upgrade" them to a service that suits their needs.

However, charging overage fees will eventually bring anger from the average user. We're headed toward more data, not less. While today's caps might be OK for most, cable has been busy raising speeds but leaving caps fixed. Sooner or later this is going to collide with the average user. When enough folks get angry, they are going to look for alternatives. One of two things is going to happen. Either competitors will enter the market because they sense there's money to be made or the lack of competition will cause legislators to regulate. Case in point, I understand congress is considering revising the baggage fee mania of the airlines. Despite competition and Southwest NOT charging baggage fees, it seems evident that the airlines have ticked off their customers enough for even a heavily lobbied and pro-corporate congress to consider taking action.

I don't see a whole lot of difference between the airlines baggage fees and HSI-provider caps with overage fees.

praetoralpha

join:2005-08-06
Pittsburgh, PA
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

And that higher revenue can be used to create higher profits.

FTFY.

Monopoly think: Why waste perfectly good money on infrastructure when it can be used to make the bottom line bigger???


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by praetoralpha:

Why waste perfectly good money on infrastructure when it can be used to make the bottom line bigger???

Cable companies spend Billions every year on infrastructure upgrades. Read the annual reports.

talz13

join:2006-03-15
Avon, OH
said by FFH5:

said by praetoralpha:

Why waste perfectly good money on infrastructure when it can be used to make the bottom line bigger???

Cable companies spend Billions every year on infrastructure upgrades. Read the annual reports.

Has their infrastructure spending in absolute dollars increased proportionally as their customer base and revenues have increased?

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to JasonOD
Of course and we wouldnt expect anything less from you.

I also want the car dealers, super markets, insurance companies, all local utilities, cable / SAT and IPTV, online retailers, the government, movie theaters and gas stations to start charging more too because they are all walking away from money!!!

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to Abbot7
said by Abbot7 :

Which they would never, ever do.

Why not? Can you think of a more palatable method to introduce UBB while avoiding strong opposition from the masses?

quintin3265

join:2008-06-07
State College, PA

1 recommendation

reply to JasonOD
Comcast does have overage charges - they're the $17 difference between business class and residential class.

Comcast isn't stupid, and they wouldn't be allowing people in business class to use unlimited bandwidth if they weren't making money. Anyone who believes that they are somehow ignorant that heavy users subscribe to business class service is naive. Their system isn't being "abused" - they're offering a better service and you pay more money for it. Their network is so undercapacity, in my area at least, that they make money even on the $43/month residential users who hit their caps. They aren't going to kick off users who pay them $17 more to use a network that has more than enough bandwidth available. That's probably why their business services are slower than their residential services - because the speed of the connection is calculated to be its own cap.

To me, this seems to be a very fair system as it is currently set up. If you want a cap, you pay less for residential service. If you want unlimited service, you pay more for commercial service. You get what you pay for, and Comcast makes money accordingly.

In my opinion, Comcast's business class is by far the best ISP that I have ever had. Unlike FiOS, I always get Comcast's provisioned speeds and have never seen a slowdown below those speeds at any time of day. Comcast's network has never gone out, not even once, and their ping times are lower than Verizon's. I never hear from them about bandwidth usage or running servers. I send them my $60 every month, and it just works.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :

Kicking higher use customers off or sending them to Comcast's business class product

Isn't that charging more by default?

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Skippy25
They likely will if the market bears it


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
reply to FFH5
They could...but they won't. If UBB was made fairly, customers would actually be able to save money by using less bandwidth. As things stand now, no customer actually sees savings. The best they can aim for is to continue to be screwed at today's rates.
said by FFH5:

And that higher revenue can be used to both expand infrastructure and create higher profits.

They've already been very profitable. Shouldn't the current high profits go to network infrastructure investment? What is there to believe that this influx of profit would be any different?


Abbot7

@jillyred.net
reply to openbox9
Apparently you didn't read my second sentence.


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
reply to FFH5
I honestly wouldn't know it based upon what I see locally. Many of our utilities seem to be operating on a skeleton maintenance budget.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to FFH5
They let people use business class unlimited because they know the typical home user who gets it to go download crazy is also unlikely to be calling in a lot and using that expedited service that business class comes with.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Cable companies spend Billions every year on infrastructure upgrades. Read the annual reports.

And yet somehow, all of their upgrades are crippled by a handful of users running BitTorrent. Or so they claim...

Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

1 edit
reply to FFH5
For TWC I see only $150 million devoted to upgrades of their $18 billion business. There are a few billion more for maintenance, subscriber boxes, and expansion, but those don't improve customer service to justify massive rate increases. It also appears that TWC's cost of bandwidth per data customer is about $1 per month!

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Abbot7
I did, but you prefaced it with "they never will".


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to FFH5
You cant be this stupid???

Sorry, but everyone uses the internet for different things and more or less than others. To come up with a current revenue neutral per byte billing makes no sense and then we all get screwed as we use the internet more.

Also the costs of the network have almost nothing to do with usage, they are fixed costs based on the equipment and physical line to your house. If you use your connection to download 500GB in a month your connection still cost the same as someone that downloaded 50GB a month.

You should not get unfair discounts for using your connection less when costs are the same.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

They likely will if the market bears it

There is no competition in the internet industry or I would not have caps right now.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
reply to r81984
said by r81984:

You should not get unfair discounts for using your connection less when costs are the same.

There is a per-connection cost for internet, that is true. However, to say that a bandwidth hog doesn't cost the ISP more in costs compared to a one-a-day email checker is silly.

A fair UBB would be one where light users would actually see a real reduction on bills. All the ones currently proposed though offer no such thing - the best users can do is break even with their current overpriced connection.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
Your usage is insignificant to the costs of your connection.
If you call tech support once you already cost more than someone maxing their connection out.
Light users should not have a reducting in bills as then everyone else would be subsidizing their physical connection and equipment.

An ISP limits usage with speed tiers, not caps.
If you want more speed then you have to pay more for faster equipment so when you use your faster speed it is all paid for.

I have had ATT since 2000. Now ATT has been sending me emails saying I have gone over their caps. WTF?
I could download more in 2000 than I can now.
I wil not change my internet usage for phony caps, but I expect to be without internet soon as ATT will probably refuse to accept my monthly payments for using my connection like it was the year 2000.

Usage Based Billing and Caps makes no sense for an ISP as costs are not based on usage. There is no such thing as a fair UBB for internet.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to r81984
And if consumers stopped paying the price if they deem it too egregious, prices would stop rising.


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
reply to r81984
said by r81984:

Your usage is insignificant to the costs of your connection.
If you call tech support once you already cost more than someone maxing their connection out.
Light users should not have a reducting in bills as then everyone else would be subsidizing their physical connection and equipment.

Source?

The cost to move residential data is much smaller than most UBB plans lead to believe...but there are costs involved. This is the first I've heard that there is zero cost to move them, regardless of moving 1 MB or 1 TB.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
Insignificant != 0
But your usage really does not matter as you have to pay 100% cost + their margin for your physical line, the port it is connected two and partial cost of each drop and port down the line. If you do not use your connection much all of that costs the same.
ISPs would never sell you a connection at a loss. Tier 1 ISPs like ATT have no extra costs over their network since they are not being ripped off by reselling internet. Their physical equipment is the internet.

An ISP will always charge you a flat fee to cover all the network costs and their profit margin desired. Then they will use UBB as a way to rip off the minority of internet subcribers and will get away with it as long as they are a monopoly or the 1 competing company does UBB also.

The sad part is people need the internet so they are forced to get it regardless if they are against the caps.
The only solution is real network neutrality laws that will forces ISPs to offer an unrestricted (including uncapped) internet. You should always get the same internet regardless of the ISP you choose.

We have had uncapped internet in the country from 1995 to 2011 and ISPs were greatly profitable. UBB is just a way to block internet tv/video competition with tv service or to steal some extra money from those that use their connection more.
There will be a day when the FCC will breakup all ISP/TV companies into two separate companies. We will get internet by dummy pipe providers and then we will able to order TV from 1 of various cable companies online.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
So, no source to the "insignificant" costs involved, okay.

Telco

join:2008-12-19
reply to openbox9
What choice do most Americans have? It's like implying that if you do not like power pricing, get rid of it from your house. Data has become as essential as any other utility in our lives.

This is indeed why so many countries that have consumer protection agencies (the thing the GOP has blocked here) have polices to encourage competition and stamp out US style monopolies.

I had a good 10+ broadband providers to choose from when I was abroad. Using technologies ranging from cable, wifi, ADSL2+, 3.5G etc, all in one location. I only have 1 here - comcast.

This is why other nations are starting to roll out a government owned wholesale FTTP network. Much like roads, this model allows a range of carriers to sell data services over the wholesale network; rather than the status-quo where monopolies do whatever they want.

Telco

join:2008-12-19
reply to quintin3265
That's just silly considering the nature of cable tech versus FTTH and it's actually the other way round.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Telco
said by Telco:

This is why other nations are starting to roll out a government owned wholesale FTTP network.

Great concept. Who pays for it?