lukaro8
join:2000-12-06
Jacksonville, FL | Tiered pricing isn't anything to really fear..... I wouldn't worry about the tiered pricing plans. Most of all the ones mentioned haven't rasied the price for current speeds too much.. Its the idea of consumption caps that scares the heck out of me... Espeacialy with more and more "broadband" pop ads popping up everywhere. I have long stated I don't mind ads online. Somebody's got to pay for websites but don't make the target customers pay for the ads. |
|
| Frog in boiling water scenario:
1.) Put frog in boiling water, frog jumps out and lives.
applied: charge consumer for ever bit of data at 3 times the cost, monthly cable&inet access bills hit $200 amonth (the cable industries target price) cable companies are satisfied (they will never be happy).
effect: all consumers laugh, cry scream and cancel service.
2.) Put the frog in cool water slowly increase heat until frog dies in boiling water.
Applied:
1.) Restrict all comm protocols as much as possible (i.e. when I first got RR I could run a personal web server and... yes a game server, now I can no longer do this even though cust svc sent me an email 3 yrs ago saying it was ok.)
2.) Start limiting connection speeds, harrass customer base if they use more that 5GB month.
3.) Implement tierd pricing with "reasonable rates" to gain acceptance. In progess now.
4.) Massivly increase tiered pricing due to "increased operational cost, government regs making it difficult to operate, balh blah" and all other excuses to gouge customer. *here some lucky people will jump from the pot, but not enough for the cable co to care.
5.) Increase prices to $200 for cable and 56k internet access, additionally charge consumer by the bit&byte & #hours used. Now there are abunch of dead frogs in the pot, but they will leave the heat just low enough that you dont die to give them thier monthly revenue stream. You will accept this becuase you are a stupid consumer who lives for the minute, your are too dumb to realize what are doing ahHAHAHAHAha heh HAHAHAHA
-The $$$$Cable$$$$ company$ |
|
| reply to lukaro8
Look, the bottom line is that these guys are over-extended, greedy to the point of insanity, milking their own cow whilst plugging it in the arse, and all have 3 sets of books by which to play "pin the balance sheet on this one" while the customer who is -> (already paying WAY too much for communications services) -> drools at the thought of getting "50 times your dialup speeds" is also going to get the same treatment as the cow--which you *will* in the end. (no pun intended) How else can you explain an industry, that for all intent and purpose, should be perfectly solvent with their business model? What's that you say? They borrowed too much to begin with? Lined their pockets with any available money made with SPE's? Loaned themselves billions in shareholders' money (Adelphia)?
Does this sound like a trustworthy bunch to you?
No sh*t Sherlock.
Tell them all to kiss off and die off.
As soon as people start to realize that the net is a vast wasteland any way, (wonder how long that will take) then all of them are sunk. |
|
|
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to TehCabALCO
Since this scenario is also frequently used in Sunday school lessons, the daughter of a friend of my uncle talked her dad into letting her actually do the experiment (this was several decades ago) to see what happened.
Scenario one Put frog in boiling water
Observations
Frog dies almost instantly upon hitting water
Experiment not repeated.
(Customers search around grasping for alternatives and realize that they do not have any. Those who can afford it, stay)
Scenario two Put frog in cold water and slowly boil
Observations
Frog gets bored. Hops away.
Experiment repeated ten times, same results.
(As prices continue to slowly rachet up, alternative broadband solutions continue to develop. When customers stay on despite ever rising prices in an area, telcos pay attention and decide to grab the consumer's attention. Many cities start considering the Spencer, IA route of developing their own physical plant and saying "Screw you" to the cable, phone, and power companies.)
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
or Go to
»isca.whiteboard.net for more information (and java telnet access) |
|
 XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
 ·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
| *Cough*
"Take a pot of hot water and a frog. Throw the frog into the pot. What do you think will happen? The obvious, of course: the frog will jump out. Who likes hanging around in a pot of hot water? Now ... [t]ake a pot of cold water, put the frog in it, and place the pot on the stove. Turn on the heat. This time something different will occur. The frog, because of the incremental change in temperature, will not notice that it is slowly being boiled. |
|
| quote:
The frog, because of the incremental change in temperature, will not notice that it is slowly being boiled.
The frog may not notice it at first but the frog's body does have a threshold. Sooner or later it will notice. |
|
 Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1 | reply to lukaro8
Re: Tiered pricing isn't anything to really fear.. said by lukaro:
Its the idea of consumption caps that scares the heck out of me... Espeacialy with more and more "broadband" pop ads popping up everywhere.
A month's of Pop Up ads wouldn't even dent a day or two of non stop Napstering bandwidth consumption wise.... that is the real issue here.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West) |
|
| Hayward! I knew if I looked far enough down, I'd see your post in here! 
I agree - I don't think most people realize that most pop-up ads are not more than 1kb to 5kb in size...The have to make them small to avoid harassing the 56k crowd.
Any who, another battle, another lost cause...I've considered throwing my hat into the ring on this issue because I've noticed two types on people on this board.
1) The ones that will logically consider one's argument for the tiers, and while they may not agree with the tiers, will agree that it may be necessary to keep paying for the services provided, thus allowing the cable company to continue to offer service and understand how business works. These folks have read their TOS and AUP and understand the conditions of their service; or
2) The ones that think that the cable company is their personal nurse-maid and that the cable company should give then the fastest service, with the biggest pipe, with the lowest price - even if it kills the company and puts them out of business. They refuse to listen to logic, won't take the effort to understand or even read all the information involved. These are also the folks who never read a TOS or any other type of service agreement.
The second class of people are the ones that have made me lose all hope in even trying to get them to see any other point of view.
--
WARNING! Do not look directly into the processed chicken... |
|
 MashikiBalking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
 ·Bright House
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to spenster
Re: Tiered pricing isn't anything to really fear..... said by spenster:
quote:
The frog, because of the incremental change in temperature, will not notice that it is slowly being boiled.
The frog may not notice it at first but the frog's body does have a threshold. Sooner or later it will notice.
Yes, but by the time it notices the damage is done. The muscles are in such poor shape it can't jump out or away. In such, it slowly boils to death. Haven eaten frog out in the middle of the boonies, while I "lived off the land", I can attest that it does happen that way. |
|
| reply to Hayward
Re: Tiered pricing isn't anything to really fear.. Hayward's hit it on the head. People want (or should I say DEMAND) T-1 performance (bandwidth and through put) for $50...sorry, doesn't exist. The all you can eat bandwidth buffet is closing rapidly.
The connections cost what the connections cost and it's not about how much a particular person is downloading, it's how many people are on the connection at once. By capping, the ISP's lower the number of simultaneous users.
Teen lamers will roll in saying it doesn't cost the ISP based on how much passes through their connections, gimmie, gimmie, gimmie...but when you have a finite amount of through put per moment in time...the recent rash (say the last 18 months) in popularity of P2P apps is making the $40-$50 not work. The caps are creating a situation of getting less service for more money. For the past 18 months, users have been taking more and more and more bandwidth as online gaming, streaming AV and P2P get more popular.
The connection that used to support 1,000's of customers in 1997-1999 no longer does as those 1,000's of customers now use their connections more often...that is, the percentage of the 1,000's of paying customers that are on at the same time ever increases. And of course the teen lamer argument will be they shouldn't oversell. Well, ALL ISP's OVERSELL...it's how you've gotten 1.5Mb service for $40 while T-1's cost $1,000+ with loop.
It's not just ISP speeds the P2P apps kill either. Kazaa is well known for it's supernode function creating virtual DoS attacks on networks as they receive so many requests...raising latency from the happy days 100ms to 500ms or more making online gaming and other low latency apps crash and burn.
These ISP's would solve their issues by blocking popular P2P ports like 1214 used by Kazaa. Magically the capacity and latency problems fall by the wayside. |
|
 winsyrstrifeRiver City BouncePremium
join:2002-04-30
Brooklyn, NY | said by Count Hogula:
These ISP's would solve their issues by blocking popular P2P ports like 1214 used by Kazaa. Magically the capacity and latency problems fall by the wayside.
Until "Kixter" or "WinExcess" comes out, using a different port, sharing more 100-x00 MB movies, apps, and albums.
The ISPs are starting to realized that it's impossible to govern a person's self-control and moral sense.
Bad Joe User: "I don't give a damn, I paid $50 for this, it was advertised as always on, so I'll always use it." Turn on Bearshare, click click click, go to sleep.
Advertising the connection as always on was a mistake. People take things quite literally at times. Anyone who works as a tech for an ISP/help desk understands what I'm saying. Unfortunately, the reigns have to come in somewhere. Caps seems to be the preferred method.
While I can sympathize with someone who doesn't appreciate the idea (I'd be ticked off to if I D/L a 200 MB demo and it sucked, then D/L a 600 MB app that turned out to be corrupted), if it ensures quality and a constant level of service for all, so be it.
--
56K is good. You can benchmark your PC by leaving it all on day trying to D/L something... |
|
| reply to Hayward
Oh please. How much bandwidth do YOU use a month Hayward. I do NO (read NONE, ZERO, ZIP) file-sharing and I know that I use close to if not over 10 GB a month. They are placing a 5 GB cap on these lines? How useful and unlimited does this service then become? All it takes is a little surfing, some email, newsgroup browsing (not Binaries either) and some online gaming and one is over the cap. This "Let's blame it all on Napster." crap is for the birds. The question should be, What does the common user ie average of the whole, use and what level becomes excessive? The question should not be at what level (cap) does 95% of of users exceed every month, so that we can charge more.
--
Notme in STL |
|
