dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4
share rss forum feed

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to the cerberus

Re: Caps should be outlawed !

said by the cerberus:

said by InvalidError:

"Accurate billing" sounds nice in theory but it is not practical in the real world. Whatever proportional scheme ends up implemented, averaging is always required to keep it practical.

Nonsense. All you have to do is pass the cost down to the consumer for the traffic they caused. Its very simple.

in other words, only billing when the user is actually adding to traffic. then figure out the cost of bandwidth during that time.
Then you can add up all the REAL TRAFFIC caused over the month.
Even if there was no usage patterns there is no reason why you couldnt factor in time of day and if there was traffic or not.

That would require significantly more complex tracking systems than are currently in place, and even more significantly staffed call centres to deal with the customers who don't understand the usage portions of their bills.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by bt:

That would require significantly more complex tracking systems than are currently in place, and even more significantly staffed call centres to deal with the customers who don't understand the usage portions of their bills.

Access charge + usage charge would work fine in this case, as long as both were reasonable.

The problem with Caps isn't the overage charge itself, it's the fact that it's designed to be punitive, which is anti-innovation, and protectionist.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
said by El Quintron:

said by bt:

That would require significantly more complex tracking systems than are currently in place, and even more significantly staffed call centres to deal with the customers who don't understand the usage portions of their bills.

Access charge + usage charge would work fine in this case, as long as both were reasonable.

The problem is that as the cerberus was explaining it, the usage charge per unit of measurement would be variable, depending on how much everyone else was using it at the time.

Just imagine the people that have trouble figuring out what they've used now... they'd never figure out a system that also factors in peak loads.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by bt:

Just imagine the people that have trouble figuring out what they've used now... they'd never figure out a system that also factors in peak loads.

A system that measures peak loads although technically correct, may be logistically unfeasible, due to the complexities you just mentioned, that's why I proposed something that I considered to be a fair, non-punitive UBB.

The "caps system" for lack of a better name, is designed to be punitive... this needs to stop, and ISPs have to get back into the business of moving bits, not protecting TV, and their other legacy businesses.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
said by El Quintron:

The "caps system" for lack of a better name, is designed to be punitive... this needs to stop, and ISPs have to get back into the business of moving bits, not protecting TV, and their other legacy businesses.

How low would the UBB rate need to be for you to not consider it "punitive" anymore? When I tried calculating the all-inclusive real cost of a GB a few years ago, I came up with a lower bound of $0.025/GB and upper bound of $0.05/GB. While much cheaper than Bell's ~$0.25/GB with CBB, even $0.025/GB would still be somewhat chilling to people who are allergic to paying anything extra.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by InvalidError:

While much cheaper than Bell's ~$0.25/GB with CBB, even $0.025/GB would still be somewhat chilling to people who are allergic to paying anything extra.

The "chill" comes from the fact that there's a usage compenent built into the access fee... hence not making it very appealing to go over your caps.

Here's a better question, assuming there was no usage component built in, how much would you charge for 25/10 service? How much would you charge for 6/1 service?
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
said by El Quintron:

Here's a better question, assuming there was no usage component built in, how much would you charge for 25/10 service? How much would you charge for 6/1 service?

If I was in charge, 6/1 would not exist where VDSL2 is available (no point in offering it since VDSL2 ports cost the same regardless of speed) and 25/10 without any included usage would be around $20/month.

If it costs ~$100 000 to deploy and operate a DSLAM for 10 years and you have an average of 80 subscribers on it, the DSLAM costs $11/month/sub. Add $3/month to cover copper costs, $2/month/sub to cover CO-side (aggregation) equipment costs, a 15% markup to cover unexpected/marginal costs and profit, the bandwidth-invariant part of VDSL2 access comes out to about $20/month.


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
You're hired. Make it so.

Mike


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by dillyhammer:

You're hired. Make it so.

Mike

What he said.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to InvalidError
I think it's silly to say that a DSLAM will last for 10 years... With the rate that cable is upgrading their systems, current VDSL2 deployments will not be relevant for high-value markets in 10 years.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by Guspaz:

I think it's silly to say that a DSLAM will last for 10 years... With the rate that cable is upgrading their systems, current VDSL2 deployments will not be relevant for high-value markets in 10 years.

Of course not, but even if VDSL deployments are only good for another 5 years, it doesn't increase the costs to the consumer by much.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
Well, based on his math the $20/mth becomes $31/mth, which is a decent chunk since you have to also use it to provide low-end service.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by Guspaz:

Well, based on his math the $20/mth becomes $31/mth, which is a decent chunk since you have to also use it to provide low-end service.

If it were up to me I'd probably just phase out the low end service
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

Well, based on his math the $20/mth becomes $31/mth, which is a decent chunk since you have to also use it to provide low-end service.

If you shorten the service life, you also reduce the OAM costs associated with that lifespan and the cost only goes up $2-3.

As for "low-end service", the port cost would be the same since none of the costs considered in my costing exercise were bandwidth/speed-related. As Quintron said, I would simply not offer such a service since it makes no sense in the port+usage model I derived for Dilly and Quintron over the last couple of posts.