dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9
share rss forum feed

steevo22

join:2002-10-17
Fullerton, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
reply to elray

Re: As has been said before

said by elray:

Does anyone here really want to pay $45/month and $.45/minute (plus long distance and roaming charges) for their cellphone service?

I think there is still a case to be made, in some low-density/underserved locales, to re-take the last mile and run it as a cooperative or regulated monopoly with guaranteed rates of return in order to assure deployment - but doing so will result in substantially higher pricing than most here are imagining.

$45 a month and .45 a minute. That brings back memories: bad ones. I was one of the first cellular phone subscribers in the world, on the PacTell Cellular System. I had a phone screwed in my car, and that was the rates I paid. Don't bring back the bad old days!

But seriously, lots of people are comfortable with the "cellular phone pricing model" that has been in play, where they charge you $30 for 500 minutes, and .45 a minute for overages. So if you use 500 or less you pay $30, and if you use an extra 20% or 600 they charge you more than double, or $75. It's called using pricing as a deterrent.

In everything you can think of you get a better price if you buy more: Roast beef, gardening services, buses, airplanes, real estate, plywood.

In cellular, and in broadband, if you use "too much" they essentially fine you.

That should be stopped and you should be a valuable bigger user getting a discount if you use more. That makes sense to me.

So sure, if bandwidth must be metered, as long as the first 200 gb cost more than the overage per gb, it would be working economically the way it's supposed to.

Bigger customer, better price, it's how it's supposed to me.

Using pricing as a usage deterrent is for the birds and anti competitive. It's not how business is supposed to work. There's no shortage, or there should be a shortage here in America.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

said by steevo22:

said by elray:

I think there is still a case to be made, in some low-density/underserved locales, to re-take the last mile and run it as a cooperative or regulated monopoly with guaranteed rates of return in order to assure deployment - but doing so will result in substantially higher pricing than most here are imagining.

In everything you can think of you get a better price if you buy more: Roast beef, gardening services, buses, airplanes, real estate, plywood.

In cellular, and in broadband, if you use "too much" they essentially fine you.

Using pricing as a usage deterrent is for the birds and anti competitive. It's not how business is supposed to work. There's no shortage, or there should be a shortage here in America.

While I don't find the cap-and-overage model necessary for wired broadband providers, it is NOT anti-competitive. Quite the contrary, if the ISP or MSO is making "record profits" by charging "steep overages", someone else will enter that marketplace and charge less.

As it stands today, with a few rural exceptions (i.e. Frontier), broadband prices are substantially lower and bitrates higher than they were a decade ago - the result of "greed", not regulation. And the rural case will generally improve with LTE.

The advantage to the consumer with caps is that the carrier can afford to offer a lower priced tier to those who otherwise might choose to do without. This whole historical discussion started over a $15/month rate plan, which was censured by so-called "consumer advocates" even before it debuted.

Capped models do follow your volume-discount desire.
Unlimited tiers are generally available, sometimes they're "business class".
Only in the mind of Karl Bode do they routinely charge punitive overages - that practice is almost completely retired.

There most certainly is a shortage of spectrum compared to the potential demand - some of it is the result of boneheaded governance, and some of it is arguably arbitrary and artificial, but even disposing of the waste and abuse, there isn't much available.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

said by elray:

if the ISP or MSO is making "record profits" by charging "steep overages", someone else will enter that marketplace and charge less.

Right.... because it is so easy to enter the market and those 2-3 BILLION dollar quarterly profits arent incentive enough already are they? Go back to sleep. We will wake you when there is actual competition.

steevo22

join:2002-10-17
Fullerton, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
reply to elray

said by elray:

said by steevo22:


In everything you can think of you get a better price if you buy more: Roast beef, gardening services, buses, airplanes, real estate, plywood.

In cellular, and in broadband, if you use "too much" they essentially fine you.

Using pricing as a usage deterrent is for the birds and anti competitive. It's not how business is supposed to work. There's no shortage, or there should be a shortage here in America.

While I don't find the cap-and-overage model necessary for wired broadband providers, it is NOT anti-competitive. Quite the contrary, if the ISP or MSO is making "record profits" by charging "steep overages", someone else will enter that marketplace and charge less.

I just don't think that's true at all. You are just wrong.

In 99% of the areas there is only one or two providers. One wireline ILEC and one cable provider. In some rural areas there is only cable, no competition at all.

The barrier to entry is so steep to provide wired internet service with the ILECs owning the local loop and charging what is likely a ridiculous amount to rent space in their CO and local loop usage it keeps nearly all competition away. That was all a stillborn idea that is dead as hell now. A few companies tried, but they all failed.

In my area we have TWC charging an exorbitant amount and ATT with slow DSL service. So I can get crappy and fairly cheap from ATT, or pretty decent but it's $70 a month. And I don't much care for TWC's business practices. Bundle, please!

So for now I have crappy and cheap. I wish I had a choice of three more providers who were actually competing with each other but I don't.

Sonic.net resells ATT so even though they could be expected to harangue them to give me better service there is ultimately nothing they can do. I talked to them. It was a waste of time.