 El QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna |
to bt
Re: Caps should be outlawed !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. |
|
| |
bt
Member
2012-Sep-12 12:46 pm
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 QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna |
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. |
|
| |
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 QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna |
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? |
|
| |
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. |
|
 dillyhammerSTART me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON |
You're hired. Make it so.
Mike |
|
El QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna |
|
|
 GuspazGuspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC |
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. |
|
El QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna |
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. |
|
GuspazGuspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC |
Guspaz
MVM
2012-Sep-13 6:33 pm
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. |
|
El QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna |
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 |
|
| |
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. |
|
