dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7133
share rss forum feed


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
reply to Alcohol

Re: [Caps] Comcast testing at least two different cap plans

said by Alcohol:

said by espaeth:

said by jagged:

$10 for 50GB. What a scam

$0.20/GB after you've already hit a threshold of 6x more bandwidth consumption than the average user is a scam?

Yes.

Increased usage drives the need to upgrade capacity, and since companies exist to make money you need to offset operating expense with revenue.

What's the better way to accomplish that goal?


GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
The so-called "above average" usage typically occurs because some customers use their connections when many/most others aren't using theirs. So instead of portions of the network doing nothing useful for 50% of the time, they'll be doing nothing useful for 45% of the time (just speaking relatively). This is something that drives the "need" to upgrade capacity? Hardly. Caps are marketing BS (aka "scam"). "Upgrades" merely look good in the ads.

If all you're doing is simply more of what every other residential customer is doing, that has nothing to do with business usage. And these business accounts use the same network as the residential accounts--nothing get "upgraded" (except for someone's invoice).


Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:4
reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:

Increased usage drives the need to upgrade capacity, and since companies exist to make money you need to offset operating expense with revenue.

What's the better way to accomplish that goal?

Incorrect. They're making money off infrastructure that is already in place. They should upgrade it if they're unable to meet the current demand of customers. Not our problem that their back-end hasn't been upgraded to the current standards. Use some of the $6 billion in net profits they had last year.
--
I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to GlennAllen
said by GlennAllen:

The so-called "above average" usage typically occurs because some customers use their connections when many/most others aren't using theirs. So instead of portions of the network doing nothing useful for 50% of the time, they'll be doing nothing useful for 45% of the time (just speaking relatively). This is something that drives the "need" to upgrade capacity? Hardly. Caps are marketing BS (aka "scam").

Take a look at the numbers from the 2011 Cisco Visual Networking Index report:

* The average broadband connection generates 14.9 GB of Internet traffic per month, up from 11.4 GB per month last year, an increase of 31 percent

* The top 1 percent of broadband connections is responsible for more than 20 percent of total Internet traffic. The top 10 percent of connections is responsible for over 60 percent of broadband Internet traffic, worldwide.
So there has been a 300% increase in average usage since 2011, and that capacity has largely been created by planned technology refresh upgrades. (ie, that's been paid for out of the portion of your bill that goes to upgrades) This still highlights the problem that you have with runaway usage at the top end, which is what caps and overages are trying to address: 10% of your customer base is responsible for generating the load that drives over half of your demand. The top 1% alone drives 1/5th. Do you let the top 1% continue to run away and drive 1/3rd? 1/2?

Personally, I favor the overage approach. From a network operator perspective, I'm willing to build all the capacity a client could ever want if they're willing to pay for it.


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

Managing the growth in residential broadband usage

An article on the CED Magazine site yesterday about all this:

Usage-based service management
By Stephan Collins and Bob Hunt, CED Magazine - June 5, 2013
»www.cedmagazine.com/articles/201···nagement

From the beginning of the article:
quote:
The profitability of fixed broadband service providers is being threatened by the tremendous growth in residential broadband Internet usage.

Widespread consumer adoption of a diverse array of new bandwidth-intensive applications and services is driving increasing costs in broadband networks worldwide.

With faster connection speeds and relentless growth in per-subscriber usage, operators find themselves in an endless cycle of capital spending to expand network capacity in order to keep pace with increasing demand. Meanwhile, broadband ARPU (average revenue per user) remains relatively flat, so rising costs are reflected in lower profit margins.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
reply to IowaCowboy

Re: [Caps] Comcast testing at least two different cap plans

Nice to see higher limits. I am on either Blast or Extreme 50 (I think we are Blast / 30 Mbps upgraded to 50 Mbps, but we see speeds up to 90 Mbps, so I dunno), and we use about 250 GB/month.

This is for a family of three and about 10 devices between us--two of us game, all three of us stream video.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL
kudos:1
reply to IowaCowboy
They have to make profit from the subscriber loss. They will bring those missing profits over to the internet side and make money on data usage.


FifthE1ement
Tech Nut

join:2005-03-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
reply to telcodad

Re: Managing the growth in residential broadband usage

said by telcodad:

An article on the CED Magazine site yesterday about all this:

Usage-based service management
By Stephan Collins and Bob Hunt, CED Magazine - June 5, 2013
»www.cedmagazine.com/articles/201···nagement

From the beginning of the article:

quote:
The profitability of fixed broadband service providers is being threatened by the tremendous growth in residential broadband Internet usage.

Widespread consumer adoption of a diverse array of new bandwidth-intensive applications and services is driving increasing costs in broadband networks worldwide.

With faster connection speeds and relentless growth in per-subscriber usage, operators find themselves in an endless cycle of capital spending to expand network capacity in order to keep pace with increasing demand. Meanwhile, broadband ARPU (average revenue per user) remains relatively flat, so rising costs are reflected in lower profit margins.

Nice find telco, I usually use anywhere from 100GB to 200GB per month WITH NO TORRENTING (mainly normal browsing and Netflix and YouTube)! When I used to torrent I would use anywhere from 250GB to 1TB! I've even gotten a call from the dreaded Comcast security team (before 250GB cap) telling me if I didn't reduce my usage I would be terminated. Then I got into an hour long argument over how much was to much. They wouldn't state a number. So I said according to this conversation that, BTW I'm recording, if next month I do 999GB vs 1TB+ this month I will be OK, right? He wouldn't agree but they never called again. It felt like arguing with a five year old. According to the Comcast site most people only use 12-14GB per month, I call BS! I have never met one person who used that little, even with only email and normal web surfing!

said by Krisnatharok:

Nice to see higher limits. I am on either Blast or Extreme 50 (I think we are Blast / 30 Mbps upgraded to 50 Mbps, but we see speeds up to 90 Mbps, so I dunno), and we use about 250 GB/month.

This is for a family of three and about 10 devices between us--two of us game, all three of us stream video.

Exactly my point! Netflix can pull 4GB per show and if you have a big family with a couple computers, Netflix, YouTube, connected TV's, video game systems you could easily do 100+GB without breaking a sweat! And Comcast knows it which is why they raised the caps in the trial areas! Also why isn't Comcast's network crashing right now?! The whole reason they started caps was to stop heavy users from ruining it for the rest of their neighborhoods! Why isn't everything just running on fumes or crashing now that everyone can download as much as they want?! It's such a scam to get money and this period of 250GB cap suspension should be proof. Comcast are the biggest scamsters going around! Well next to Verizon and ATT anyway!

5th
--
"The relationship between what we see and what we know is never settled..."


entitled

@verizon.net
said by FifthE1ement:

The whole reason they started caps was to stop heavy users from ruining it for the rest of their neighborhoods! Why isn't everything just running on fumes or crashing now that everyone can download as much as they want?! It's such a scam to get money and this period of 250GB cap suspension should be proof. Comcast are the biggest scamsters going around! Well next to Verizon and ATT anyway!

5th

Because they keep investing to avoid "fumes" for 99% of the users.

Why shouldn't the 1% that use 20% not pay their fair share of upgrade investments?


Aozora

join:2008-11-28
Reviews:
·Comcast

2 edits
reply to IowaCowboy

Re: [Caps] Comcast testing at least two different cap plans

Yeah and this is quite scary. I'm wondering if Comcast does implement such stringent caps if they will service the same apartment with two HSI plans since we currently use about 750GB on avg.These caps were good in 2007. But apparently stuff uses more bandwidth nowadays or it sure feels like it.

At $10 for 50GB we would have to pay about 80 extra and it's cheaper to just get another plan in that case.

In the image is a low usage month where I believe I watch one episode of a show online if that.


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
If most of that traffic is from streaming video and Comcast goes to usage based video, then it would make more economic sense to subscribe to a cable or satellite video service.

I use about 35 GB per month between several Macs and several iOS devices. My video comes in through a DirecTV Slimline 5 SWM dish and with better video quality than Comcast's video offering.

In my opinion, video is best delivered through its own pipe as you don't have issues with buffering or bogging down your neighbors connection.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.

FirebirdTN

join:2012-12-13
Brighton, TN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Aozora
Some food for thought...

I know probably most businesses don't operate this way, but I couldn't help but think...

I get bandwidth usage reports from my router(s) at work. I also use the same line of router at home. We are operational 24/7, but business hours are 8-5.

Its no coincidence that bandwidth usage from 8-5 SOARS at work, but during off hours its minimal. Conversely at home, internet usage is at a minimum during our business hours.

Now we don't have Comcast at work *yet*, but I am just about to close the deal on bringing their service in so I can add some bandwidth to our network and do some load balancing.

I can't help but wonder what the "business" demand generally looks like at all hours of the day compared to the "residential" demand. I really wonder if they even come close to "balancing" out...

On topic, I am a heavy user. But I don't do torrents, and rarely do downloads. The vast majority of my usage comes from four Netflix capable blu-ray players. I got tired of paying that $100+ satellite bill.

-Alan


Aozora

join:2008-11-28
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:

If most of that traffic is from streaming video and Comcast goes to usage based video, then it would make more economic sense to subscribe to a cable or satellite video service.

I use about 35 GB per month between several Macs and several iOS devices. My video comes in through a DirecTV Slimline 5 SWM dish and with better video quality than Comcast's video offering.

In my opinion, video is best delivered through its own pipe as you don't have issues with buffering or bogging down your neighbors connection.

A lot of mine is video, but it's not video from networks like NBC, CNN, Comedy Central, etc. It's amateur video or video from friends accounting for a large majority of it. The rest of the bandwidth video usage is 1 hr of video daily from the South Korean tv network my roommate watches by subscribing to their online thing.

If I could say that I like to watch shows then I could subscribe to a bigger tv package and say wow I cut down 300GB from video I watch on the Internet through my ondemand tv feature but that's not the case at all in my situation as I'm not a very heavy TV show watcher. If the cap wasn't raised and we can't get another plan then we could consider a business plan if the caps are unlimited. It hasn't come to that but one of these days Comcast might implement their caps.


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
reply to FirebirdTN
Comcast's network is split into "nodes" so depending on where your workplace is the node may be mostly businesses if you are in the central business district. Nodes in residential areas tend to get most of their loads in the evening and weekends. I am on a node that is split between residential and business customers since I live near a major shopping district (Eastfield Mall and surrounding shops/businesses). When my node (referred by the techs as node 3) started acting up, they took it seriously because of the large number of business customers hooked up to the node.

It would be kind of nice if they would split node 3.

With your business, I would look into getting metro Ethernet service if available, especially if QoS is critical.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.


FifthE1ement
Tech Nut

join:2005-03-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
reply to entitled

Re: Managing the growth in residential broadband usage

said by entitled :

said by FifthE1ement:

The whole reason they started caps was to stop heavy users from ruining it for the rest of their neighborhoods! Why isn't everything just running on fumes or crashing now that everyone can download as much as they want?! It's such a scam to get money and this period of 250GB cap suspension should be proof. Comcast are the biggest scamsters going around! Well next to Verizon and ATT anyway!

5th

Because they keep investing to avoid "fumes" for 99% of the users.

Why shouldn't the 1% that use 20% not pay their fair share of upgrade investments?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you! But first don't tell me the only reason you are capping plans is to protect your network from heavy users as that is a lie (as Comcast has said many times that their network would fall apart without throttling and caps, well guess what they have neither now and it's not falling apart). Also then let the higher users pay more and the lower users pay less.... But no, why would they want to do that? They can keep collecting $60 from people who only check their email once a week this way! Comcast is a bunch of scammers and they want to have their cake and eat it too! And it's Comcast's job to invest in their network and there shouldn't be any extra money put towards that! If you are a plumber and you come to a person house do you charge every home an extra $5 future new van fee? No, you add the cost into your total business plan. Today businesses, not only Comcast but all other huge companies, think they can charge us for what they are supposed to be providing as part of their service. I mean in my area the power company wants to charge us for them to change the poles that carry electric, WTF?

said by Aozora:

Yeah and this is quite scary. I'm wondering if Comcast does implement such stringent caps if they will service the same apartment with two HSI plans since we currently use about 750GB on avg.These caps were good in 2007. But apparently stuff uses more bandwidth nowadays or it sure feels like it.

At $10 for 50GB we would have to pay about 80 extra and it's cheaper to just get another plan in that case.

In the image is a low usage month where I believe I watch one episode of a show online if that.

You can get a business account which costs about as much as one and a half normal accounts and it has no caps. That will solve your problem. And if you use Netflix as your only form of video you will fack up a huge amount of bandwidth. Lets say you have just two people using Netflix (not even counting YouTube or other internet browsing) and you both watch 4 hours (minimal for most people) of tv per person. 8 hours per day and most content on Netflix is HD so 4GB per hour times 8 equals 32GB PER DAY! 32GB per day multiplied by 30 is 960GB or almost 1TB of data per month just on Netflix! Now add in more than two people in your home, video game systems, YouTube, internet browsing, computers, tablets, phones and you're looking at double that! I think a fair cap is 1TB or more! AT LEAST! And the bandwidth is only going to rise with more connected devices and quality of shows rising, 4K, new future apps and devices! These caps are limiting internet innovations in a huge way! The new video codecs aren't ready and compressed video quality always sucks anyway, simply look at Comcast's HD to make my point. According to ATT, Comcast, Verizon the internet apocalypse is coming yet there is no data to support this!

5th
--
"The relationship between what we see and what we know is never settled..."


Cjaiceman
Premium,MVM
join:2004-10-12
Parker, CO
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to IowaCowboy

Re: [Caps] Comcast testing at least two different cap plans

So, everyone in this thread needs to watch this video about why data caps are useless:

»youtu.be/uyuIiG4c4Go


Comcast, are you paying attention? We see your game...
--
TorDek: "DSLR... Here, were not just experts... were also vindictive bastards..."


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
reply to FifthE1ement

Re: Managing the growth in residential broadband usage

said by FifthE1ement:

said by Aozora:

Yeah and this is quite scary. I'm wondering if Comcast does implement such stringent caps if they will service the same apartment with two HSI plans since we currently use about 750GB on avg.These caps were good in 2007. But apparently stuff uses more bandwidth nowadays or it sure feels like it.

At $10 for 50GB we would have to pay about 80 extra and it's cheaper to just get another plan in that case.

In the image is a low usage month where I believe I watch one episode of a show online if that.

You can get a business account which costs about as much as one and a half normal accounts and it has no caps. That will solve your problem.
:
5th

FYI - You can see the latest Business Class tiers and pricing back in this thread: »Re: Business Class price increase

FactChecker
Premium
join:2008-06-03

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to IowaCowboy

Re: [Caps] Comcast testing at least two different cap plans

Click for full size
While I understand caps do impact a few people, based on all the data, the word "few" is a serious understatement. Why are we spending so much time on this? The year over year facts show wireline usage really isn't a issue for 99% of consumers and I have no problem with people in the top 1% of broadband paying for their usage vs the rest of us subsidizing their cost.
--
"Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy


FifthE1ement
Tech Nut

join:2005-03-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
said by FactChecker:

While I understand caps do impact a few people, based on all the data, the word "few" is a serious understatement. Why are we spending so much time on this? The year over year facts show wireline usage really isn't a issue for 99% of consumers and I have no problem with people in the top 1% of broadband paying for their usage vs the rest of us subsidizing their cost.

You're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. If you want to do it your way make 100% of users on per byte billing! That way the most users who only use less than 10GB per month will only have to pay $10 per month for internet. And the users who use a ton of data will pay more! But no, like the big companies, you want to continue charging everyone $60+ a month (even if a user only uses 1GB or less a month) so you keep the cash cow running. As I said before you want to have your cake and eat it to.

5th
--
"The relationship between what we see and what we know is never settled..."


PeteC2
Got Mouse?
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to IowaCowboy
While I have no reason to love (or fear) caps, like most, I would be happier without them. However, to say that over-congestion is never an issue, then clearly like myself, you are lucky enough to live in an area not affected by heavy traffic.

Ensuring adequate (and ever-growing) bandwidth is not without cost to ISPs. Further, I have no issues with ISPs making profits...that is what businesses do.

I think that a better approach might be to have a "heavy users" option that could be subscribed to at any tier, for the 10% that need to utilize that high level of bandwidth rather than a $10 for every 50gb over penalty.

I do not think that it is unfair to expect that the small percentage of users that generate large amounts of used bandwidth pay a higher percentage of Comcast's (or anyother provider's) costs towards increasing capacity, but rather than treating them as as "service-abusers" which they really are not, you provide them with an option to purchase that increased bandwidth usage up front, for a reasonable surcharge.

Frankly, the result is much the same, but the approach is that of a responsible company addressing the needs of its customers, rather than that of an avenging company accusing a customer of "abuse".
--
Deeds, not words


BandwidthHog

@comcast.net
said by PeteC2:

I think that a better approach might be to have a "heavy users" option that could be subscribed to at any tier, for the 10% that need to utilize that high level of bandwidth rather than a $10 for every 50gb over penalty.

Or perhaps just do what is often done by wireless providers and have different bandwidth tiers instead of different speed tiers.

An "up to" 50 GB per month plan for $xx per month
An "up to" 500 GB per month plan for $yy per month
An "unlimited" plan for $zzz per month (instead of pushing residential power users to an inappropriate "Business Class" plan).

FactChecker
Premium
join:2008-06-03
reply to FifthE1ement
said by FifthE1ement:

You're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. If you want to do it your way make 100% of users on per byte billing! That way the most users who only use less than 10GB per month will only have to pay $10 per month for internet. And the users who use a ton of data will pay more! But no, like the big companies, you want to continue charging everyone $60+ a month (even if a user only uses 1GB or less a month) so you keep the cash cow running. As I said before you want to have your cake and eat it to.

5th

If you have worked on the business side of any service, or take some basic business/economics classes you would understand in most service industries there is a base amount which covers most of the fixed elements of the business (facilities, infrastructure, engineering, maintenance, call centers, etc.) Then there is an attempt to simplify a billing model that is easy to understand and covers the majority of the customers.

One could create tiers (as others have mentioned) which could more evenly spread these costs out, but the reality is the 1% is WAY OUT THERE and so far removed from the rest of the pack.
--
"Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy


Aozora

join:2008-11-28
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to PeteC2
said by PeteC2:

While I have no reason to love (or fear) caps, like most, I would be happier without them. However, to say that over-congestion is never an issue, then clearly like myself, you are lucky enough to live in an area not affected by heavy traffic.

Ensuring adequate (and ever-growing) bandwidth is not without cost to ISPs. Further, I have no issues with ISPs making profits...that is what businesses do.

I think that a better approach might be to have a "heavy users" option that could be subscribed to at any tier, for the 10% that need to utilize that high level of bandwidth rather than a $10 for every 50gb over penalty.

I do not think that it is unfair to expect that the small percentage of users that generate large amounts of used bandwidth pay a higher percentage of Comcast's (or anyother provider's) costs towards increasing capacity, but rather than treating them as as "service-abusers" which they really are not, you provide them with an option to purchase that increased bandwidth usage up front, for a reasonable surcharge.

Frankly, the result is much the same, but the approach is that of a responsible company addressing the needs of its customers, rather than that of an avenging company accusing a customer of "abuse".

What is asinine is how much they want to charge per 50GB. I'd be willing to pay more. I would not mind them have a premium and standard tier where if you tend to be a heavy user you have to pay extra. It's the ridiculous overage charge prices that are a problem because you have to deal with that nuisance.

50/10Mbps standard-350GB $50 a month
50/10Mbps premium unlimited-$70 a month

It's back to cell phone plans issue. The data plans they have now and what they want to charge for their overages is them to trying to be greedy assholes and there is no other word for it.

What is stopping cell phone companies from keeping unlimited at a premium price? Greed. It's not capacity and it's not that they can't make money.

I am sure they would get plenty of people subscribing to their unlimited data for a premium of $10 of what it used to be probably just for the ease of mind, but they know they can make their lives hell by charging them some ridiculous fee and making even more money and then they try to sell the bull shit as easier plans for people like Verizon is doing for cell phone data. It's hilarious that some people believe it too.

I understand that if you want the bigger piece of the pie these companies want more revenue from you to keep their huge margins because that 2 billion dollar bonus check for Tom needs to be a 4 billion dollar check the next year, but the way they go about it is asinine. Nobody wants to be constantly checking their bandwidth usage to ensure they don't get a monstrous bill of overages at the end of the month and that can easily be avoided by merely providing an unlimited tier at a premium like they have done so for many years in various industries like the cell phone industry. It's all a matter of them being assholes really. It's not that they can't get more money, it's not that they won't make profits, it's not that there is no capacity. It's that the margin of profit could slightly decrease and that is unacceptable.

It's not that they never understood about selling in bulk as a business model. These people are all IVY league geniuses right? You sell more by giving a discount for using more, however, they want to sell more by charging you more. It makes no sense if you think about logically. We can clearly see the easiness of what I proposed above for the customers while at the same time increasing revenue. The problem is that since they know they have monopoly or oligopoly power depending on where you are their profit margin is going to decrease and that is the real issue. I don't want to get into a rant on how shit the FCC is and how stupid our laws are regarding HSI but basically they would be happy with this model if they didn't have the power of monopolies and oligopolies.

For the heavy users sell them they same bandwidth they are using now, but put them in a different class as I proposed above. More bandwidth at a discount by offering an unlimited tier at a premium price. However what they want to do is sell more bandwidth to the heavy users at a hefty premium. Hey we will give you an extra beer for 10x what we sold you the first beer at. This would never work right? You'd take the first beer and pass on the second.

I'm guessing that is the case for 90% of their HSI users since they keep claiming that is the case for a grand majority of their users and that the majority do not need the bandwidth. Most will be satisfied with the cap, but the few who need or want more will not be happy with the overage prices. I'm guessing most would put in a cheap dsl line extra to squeeze more GB for cheaper or something. So as you can see the business model is just dumb. If most don't need it then I don't see why a model like the premium and standard won't work better if actual competition for HSI providers existed.

I really wish I could speak to someone who has knowledge on their pricing as why something as easy and convenient for the customer as that is not something that they did. As I stated above, it probably wasn't something that couldn't be done, but they merely didn't have the customer in mind and instead had bigger things in mind like doubling the bonus check and making the customer's life hell. I'm sure a Comcast representative will be here shortly to try and dissuade you from what I posted above and claim that it's not true because someone at Comcast told him how nice Comcast is.


FifthE1ement
Tech Nut

join:2005-03-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
reply to FactChecker
said by FactChecker:

said by FifthE1ement:

You're not willing to put your money where your mouth is. If you want to do it your way make 100% of users on per byte billing! That way the most users who only use less than 10GB per month will only have to pay $10 per month for internet. And the users who use a ton of data will pay more! But no, like the big companies, you want to continue charging everyone $60+ a month (even if a user only uses 1GB or less a month) so you keep the cash cow running. As I said before you want to have your cake and eat it to.

5th

If you have worked on the business side of any service, or take some basic business/economics classes you would understand in most service industries there is a base amount which covers most of the fixed elements of the business (facilities, infrastructure, engineering, maintenance, call centers, etc.) Then there is an attempt to simplify a billing model that is easy to understand and covers the majority of the customers.

One could create tiers (as others have mentioned) which could more evenly spread these costs out, but the reality is the 1% is WAY OUT THERE and so far removed from the rest of the pack.

Lol, you're a trip. I agree with you on some points but apparently businesses today don't. Why is FPL (power company) trying to charge their customers extra to change utility poles which are serviced by them to begin with and are included in our service plans for electric? Why does Sprint charge me extra for their headquarters loan on the building? Why does ATT charge a new admin fee. A lot of companies no longer see fit to include operating costs in the price of service, many want to add a surcharge. Years ago companies couldn't get away with stuff like this. And I know a thing or two about economics but you simply want punish heavy users. For years Comcast used to advertise unlimited internet and then disconnect heavy users. So don't tell me they don't scam us. It wasn't until they were sued that they stopped, same with the throttling! I agree 100% with the last user that posted, as I would be willing to pay more but not be punished. Comcast's caps are way under the standard anyway, 350GB is not enough for a family or even two people (see my example in a previous post). So make the caps fair and I'll be happy to pay higher.

5th
--
"The relationship between what we see and what we know is never settled..."


entitled

@verizon.net
reply to Aozora
said by Aozora:

50/10Mbps standard-350GB $50 a month
50/10Mbps premium unlimited-$70 a month

It's back to cell phone plans issue. The data plans they have now and what they want to charge for their overages is them to trying to be greedy assholes and there is no other word for it.

Is it greedy to only charge the 100X average user? or is it greedy to be the 100x average user expecting the same price? Unlimited is a big number!!

If I use 4000GB should I pay the same as the 40GB user?

Verizon wireless charges me for going over 2GB, but not getting charged for >300GB is pretty nice!!!

FactChecker
Premium
join:2008-06-03
reply to FifthE1ement
The data says otherwise. Read my post (and the URL) which contains actual measured national data (not examples).

And FWIW, I am a "heavy user" (and subscribe to a higher tier), but I define that in the top 9%. The 1% usage is off the charts (literally).
--
"Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy


FifthE1ement
Tech Nut

join:2005-03-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
said by FactChecker:

The data says otherwise. Read my post (and the URL) which contains actual measured national data (not examples).

And FWIW, I am a "heavy user" (and subscribe to a higher tier), but I define that in the top 9%. The 1% usage is off the charts (literally).

I'm sorry bro I read the whole report and I don't believe most of it at all. The actual vs advertised speeds look about right though. My government overpays for everything and can't get any accounting right and I'm going to rely on them to gauge the state of broadband in America. No thank you. I told you the estimates for a large family and internet usage and I believe the curve on the chart you posted is far too low. Just like the Netflix charts that changed to favor Open Connect network members and punish non members. Internet consumption is growing at a rapid rate and I think in a year or two the caps that are normal now will be obsolete (most already are). 300GB is not enough, as I already explained and it limits new technologies. Just the way I see it IMHO. LOL, no hard feelings yt but you're citing the same government that spends $640 on a toilet seat and $18 million on the website to track stimulus money! Lol, $18 million for a website that was created to help other people get jobs! So I'm sorry but I don't trust their data and I know they will skew the data to get what they want or show an idea going their way.

5th
--
"The relationship between what we see and what we know is never settled..."

jagged

join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to espaeth
Charging end users $0.20/GB when Comcast buys bandwidth at less than $0.02-$0.05/GB and 50%-80% of the HSI monthly fee is pure profit. Is a scam.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
said by jagged:

Charging end users $0.20/GB when Comcast buys bandwidth at less than $0.02-$0.05/GB

What they pay in transit costs would be relevant if you were also taking a handoff in a carrier neutral meet-me facility.

99% of the costs are in getting the traffic from those half-dozen regional peering locations through a larger scale network infrastructure that gets the bits to your house.


Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:4

1 edit
And that infrastructure is already in place.