dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
650
share rss forum feed


Nightmare

@corpmailsvcs.com

NOT True Usage-based pricing

True usage based pricing is "hey grandma uses 1GB all month, its $1 for 1 gigabyte of data, her bill is $1 +tax." not "pay $30 for the connection for your 1 gigabyte of data and if you go over we charge you $30 more bucks".

We will NEVER run out of Bytes and bits, no one is "mining" for gigabytes. How can we be charged a "overage" if there is no limit and if it is a "resource" it should be regulated and have a NON ISP measure the bits and bytes usage. Water is limited, Coal is limited, petroleum is LIMITED,... can someone pour me a tall glass of/get me a bag of megabytes please?


monchis
Premium
join:2002-12-09
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:1
Great argument. But do you think they would just push back with "it's customer service oriented to push off heavy users who ruin it for the rest of us?"
--
dslreports.com

elray

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

1 recommendation

reply to Nightmare
said by Nightmare :

True usage based pricing is "hey grandma uses 1GB all month, its $1 for 1 gigabyte of data, her bill is $1 +tax." not "pay $30 for the connection for your 1 gigabyte of data and if you go over we charge you $30 more bucks".

We will NEVER run out of Bytes and bits, no one is "mining" for gigabytes. How can we be charged a "overage" if there is no limit and if it is a "resource" it should be regulated and have a NON ISP measure the bits and bytes usage. Water is limited, Coal is limited, petroleum is LIMITED,... can someone pour me a tall glass of/get me a bag of megabytes please?

"True usage-based pricing" would still incur a connection and meter charge, much like many electric bills.

Caps aren't usage-based pricing. They're a crude tool to thwart abuse and influence behavior. To a limited extent, they're meant to discourage Netflix and other potential streaming competitors. And they're the natural response to calls for "network neutrality".

Cable has demonstrated, unlike telco, year after year, a willingness to invest in broadband plant, while rates have declined. To suggest that their infrastructure is limitless ignores the peak-hours congestion that occurs on many a cable modem. Sure, they could re-wire for the 3rd or 4th time in just over a decade, but customers don't want to pay for that expense.


workablob

join:2004-06-09
Houston, TX
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by elray:

said by Nightmare :

True usage based pricing is "hey grandma uses 1GB all month, its $1 for 1 gigabyte of data, her bill is $1 +tax." not "pay $30 for the connection for your 1 gigabyte of data and if you go over we charge you $30 more bucks".

We will NEVER run out of Bytes and bits, no one is "mining" for gigabytes. How can we be charged a "overage" if there is no limit and if it is a "resource" it should be regulated and have a NON ISP measure the bits and bytes usage. Water is limited, Coal is limited, petroleum is LIMITED,... can someone pour me a tall glass of/get me a bag of megabytes please?

"True usage-based pricing" would still incur a connection and meter charge, much like many electric bills.

Caps aren't usage-based pricing. They're a crude tool to thwart abuse and influence behavior. To a limited extent, they're meant to discourage Netflix and other potential streaming competitors. And they're the natural response to calls for "network neutrality".

Cable has demonstrated, unlike telco, year after year, a willingness to invest in broadband plant, while rates have declined. To suggest that their infrastructure is limitless ignores the peak-hours congestion that occurs on many a cable modem. Sure, they could re-wire for the 3rd or 4th time in just over a decade, but customers don't want to pay for that expense.

Damn, I was gonna type just that.

Dave
--
I may have been born yesterday. But it wasn't at night.

AlfredNewman

join:2010-03-25
Columbus, OH
reply to elray
Actaully we did pay for that expense, that is what our monthly bills are supposed to include. Ongoing maintainence and future expansions.

elray

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

Actaully we did pay for that expense, that is what our monthly bills are supposed to include. Ongoing maintainence and future expansions.

Nope. You're paying today for the plant investment that was installed over the last 3-5 years, and financed over ten or more - with the cable company and shareholders assuming the risk, not you.

To convince CableCo to once again, rewire the last mile, just so a few dweebs can have "unlimited" use at 100M+ speeds, would require that CableCo believes it would make additional profits. That won't happen unless consumers are willing to pay significantly higher rates for access, i.e., for 4K viewing; that isn't going to happen with today's content contracts, it isn't going to happen under "neutrality", and the vast majority of customers won't pay the premium.

Likewise for telco. You simply aren't going to get anywhere claiming that you "already paid for" FTTH that doesn't exist and costs $4K+ / address to deploy in the real world. Telco has to see customers willing to pay the premium for such a service. Verizon has proven that they aren't.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by elray:

Telco has to see customers willing to pay the premium for such a service. Verizon has proven that they aren't.

It seems that somebody failed to inform Paxio, Sonic.net, and Surewest about that proof.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

elray

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

said by elray:

Telco has to see customers willing to pay the premium for such a service. Verizon has proven that they aren't.

It seems that somebody failed to inform Paxio, Sonic.net, and Surewest about that proof.

Google, Sonic, Surewest, and others, will learn Verizon's lesson the hard way.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
Yea sure. Surewest is wildly popular here, as is Google. We are lucky to have both.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
Any company willing to undertake the risk for FTTH is going to be "popular" with the locals. But that doesn't mean they're profitable.

To date, you can't show evidence that Google, Sonic, Surewest, or anyone else has found a way to lower the real cost of FTTH deployment, and their $70/month price-points for fiber speeds reflects it.

When you can show me data suggesting that the aforementioned ISPs achieve greater penetration levels for their $70+ product than Verizon has, while wiring more than a zip code or two, I'll be the first to congratulate them.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by elray:

To date, you can't show evidence that Google, Sonic, Surewest, or anyone else has found a way to lower the real cost of FTTH deployment, and their $70/month price-points for fiber speeds reflects it.

That would be $70 for 1Gb Internet. Seems most in Sebastopol, California are choosing the $39.95 100Mb service:

»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ··· onicnet/

In any case, I doubt that a DOCSIS HFC plant would be more profitable for them to deploy; they would be starting from scratch with that.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply to elray
said by elray:

"True usage-based pricing" would still incur a connection and meter charge, much like many electric bills.

however they want the service charge and the FULL NORMAL BILL + OVERAGES. THAT IS IN NO way like the electric company. its purely a CASH GRAB!!1
--
Despises any post with strings.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to NormanS
said by NormanS:

said by elray:

To date, you can't show evidence that Google, Sonic, Surewest, or anyone else has found a way to lower the real cost of FTTH deployment, and their $70/month price-points for fiber speeds reflects it.

That would be $70 for 1Gb Internet. Seems most in Sebastopol, California are choosing the $39.95 100Mb service:

If its available in more than a few zipcodes, then my hat's off to Dane, as it would appear that he has, indeed, found a way to install and deliver FTTH profitably, at a lower price point, apparently, without requiring Google-style special-treatment from the local municipalities.

In which case, other firms should be quick to follow suit, and we should all soon enjoy FTTH cheap.

Good find. Don't know how I missed that, amid all the "$70 Gigabit" headlines.
Google should take note and offer similar in KC.

tanzam75

join:2012-07-19
Sonic has a different cash flow calculation from the ILECs. Because they did not own the copper, they were essentially sharing part of their DSL profit with the ILEC, in the form of the rental fee. Under fiber, this amount goes to Sonic.

They're also cherry-picking by starting with Sevastopol. Overhead lines, overhead drops, houses with narrow lots. Remember that the cost of fiber deployment scales approximately linearly with length -- what matters is not so much the population density per square mile, but the density per linear mile.

In my postwar suburb, the lots are about twice as wide as those in Sebastopol. Doubles the cost of stringing fiber.