All You Can EatHas 'unlimited' pricing become a dinosaur? ( old news - 01:00PM Tuesday Apr 08 2003) tags: business · bandwidth Has "all you can eat" pricing ruined customers for the likely usage fees and capped pricing structures that lie ahead in the broadband market?.. It's been a marketing staple for a wide variety of businesses, and customers have gotten used to one flat fee services where there's no limits on how much they can consume; be that bandwidth, wireless minutes, or salad bar buffets. That love of all things un-restricted could bring some hiccups to an industry that's very much still experiencing growing pains. Vonage and Earthlink have recently been offering unlimited VOIP long distance and local calling for a flat monthly rate. ISP's have long been based around the idea that customers pay one fee, and can consume as much as is humanly possible. But when companies decide to use the unlimited pitch, more and more are finding it financially difficult to actually carry through on their promises. Take E-Music as just one example. Last year the company offered "unlimited high quality MP3's for as low as $9.99 per month" on their website's frontpage. Once the service began to win awards from both PC Magazine and CNet, customers began to arrive in droves for their mass consumption smorgasbord. Of course that's when the problems started. Users who were accustomed to piling on the croutons and olives at their local salad bars truly believed that the word "unlimited" meant just that. It wasn't long before users began mumbling on message boards, reporting an invisible glass ceiling to the downloads, and some saying they'd been threatened or booted from the service without a clear warning. The negative user reviews for the service began to grow in number, and it wasn't long before the service had a growing army of disgruntled customers. In a letter to one unhappy camper, the company stated that "the intent of EMusic has never been to enable customers to indiscriminately download massive numbers of songs. We designed EMusic as an interactive service to allow you to sample, discover and listen to music from our many label partners." The letter continues: "we have concluded that we cannot support customers who are downloading huge numbers of tracks that they cannot possibly ever listen to" and later urges the customer to "please use the service as it was intended to be used -- for sampling songs and albums and downloading numbers of tracks you can personally use and enjoy." In other words, "we really didn't mean unlimited." Despite the dozens of disgruntled patrons, the unlimited sales pitch remains on the Emusic website to this day, though a small asterisk now informs would be consumers that the word "unlimited" is but a trojan horse for the real limit, which is subject to the terms and conditions of the service agreement. Why bother with the word at all? Customers have grown used to it as an indication of value, apparently even when there's none present. (CNet did eventually pull their editor's choice award for the service) Broadband ISP's have faced the exact same problem over the past several years. Originally adopting the unlimited mantra of their dial-up ancestors, it didn't take long for many companies to realize the business impracticality of a "one size fits all" bandwidth shoe, when customers varied in consumption so drastically. Grandma Smith might use their connection for e-mail and browsing, while the local college student may download gigs of music religiously. The latter were quickly branded "bandwidth hogs" by the new world pricing order. While all ISP's already have, or will soon shift to the idea of caps and limits, the difference in the shift's early years was how forthcoming these companies have been in clearly explaining what those limits are. Cox communications originally upset customers last fall because some found their restrictions were less than clear. The company learned from the public reaction, and this year returned to the topic to draw very obvious lines in the sand. UK provider NTL faced a public relations nightmare when they suddenly decided to implement gig-a-day limits without bothering to tell anyone. When asked by a perturbed customer why they didn't mention it, one of the company's executives informed the world that they didn't think their customers would be " 'tech' enough to understand". The NTL fiasco (which birthed several anti-NTL websites) seemed to steel the resolve of customers who are dedicated to keeping the idea of unlimited broadband in place. A new lobbying group that dubs themselves Anti-Cap UK emerged today to oppose any ISP that they believe aims to "unreasonably cap their residential customers". Meanwhile the debate continues about the practicality of unlimited bandwidth among activists and analysts who enjoy debating these kinds of things on weekends. One camp seems convinced that the idea of "bandwidth hog" is a myth, fabricated as part of a grand cabal by the bandwidth industry to control, and unintentionally ruin, the internet. A more practical camp sees the move away from traditional unlimited pricing plans as an inevitability and a necessary evil. Bandwidth costs money, and as applications and services grow more demanding, it's only common sense that some of the burden for the cost of additional bandwidth will fall on the consumer. Then there are others who take that idea one step further, (like this street.com columnist writing for Telephony On-line) arguing that unless you charge users for each snippet of date consumed, you're effectively leaving revenue unclaimed. But many customers don't want to be bothered with tracking their usage on-line, or worrying about paying per-minute, or per-megabyte charges (ask customers of the Australian ISP Telstra how much they enjoy their experiences with the ISP's tracking system). It's the simplicity of the unlimited mantra that gives customers an impression of value. However, when ISP's set the table for an all you can eat banquet, and place "unlimited" advertisements in their store window, they shouldn't be shocked when they wind up playing host to some very large, and very hungry individuals. It's a balancing act between profitability and alienation, whose story will unfold as broadband further eeks its way into the technological mainstream.
Related:- Why Run Fiber When You Can Run Ads That Pretend You Do?
- RCN Preps DOCSIS 3.0 Launches
- Comcast Launches Wireless Broadband In Philly
- Verizon: Droid Tethering Will Cost $30 Extra
- Charter Offers 60 Mbps In California
- Verizon Offers New Prepaid Wireless Broadband Plans
- T-Mobile 7.2 Mbps Upgrades Arriving?
- Comcast Slammed For Non-Existent Throttling Changes
|
 rugby
I think I know it all.
VIP
join:2000-09-26
Camby, IN
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| Re: So I crawled out from under my rock last night The problem here seems to be gigantic. It seems that contracts are extremely 1-sided against the consumer in this regard. Basically there are NO protections for the consumers against changes in the TOS/AUP. Companies can change their policies to whatever they want to whenever they want to, and they have the lawyers to back them up.
It's going to be a giant bloody war between content providers and ISP's over bandwidth. People want to download movies/music, but ISP's want to cap them. Bandwidth is gold now, and somebody's sitting on a fat chest of it and won't let it out. | |
|  | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: So I crawled out from under my rock last night Or maybe you're still under the rock.
Yes, ISPs can change prices and service terms overnight. And you can change ISPs. (Use a non-ISP linked e-mail, of course.)
AOL changed the ISP dial-up model with "all-you-can-eat". It's very unlikely that in a competitive environment it will go away for the "average" user. More likely, it will be limited, like real "all-you-can-eat" buffet restaurants, so that consumers, but not businesses, can still find value. Yes, some providers will carve out niches, and limits will prevent you from feeding your whole city on a single connection, but the model will likely stay around for most of us average and power users.
For a real mindtwister, compare the debate on this item to a discussion of traffic congestion in a city--the bottlenecks just move around, they never go away....
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: So I crawled out from under my rock last night said by calvoiper  :
Yes, ISPs can change prices and service terms overnight. And you can change ISPs.
Suuuurrreee you can.
How many choices of DSL/cable providers/broadband do you have? I know some areas have choices among a FEW ISP's on DSL, and maybe a CLEC if that fails... and maybe a few areas have more then one choice on Cable ISP's.
But most of us, this area included, basically have 2 choices. The Telco DSL and their ISP, or the Cable company and their ISP.
So, if one sucks, you could change to the other.... but what if they suck as well? You've just hit the brick wall.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: So I crawled out from under my rock last night Hopefully, there will be others. They will come faster if the existing providers take their market for granted and screw their customers. (In much the same manner the Asian auto manufacturers stormed the US when the "big three" kept building models Americans didn't really want.)
There may be a more telling arrow in your quiver, though, HALG. Upon reflection, it would seem that caps are just a rate tool to suck blood from heavy (and presumably more "attached") users. Time of day pricing (or throttling) is a much more responsive approach to true capacity concerns, and while throttling may be difficult, it's hard to believe that my ISP can count all my bits but not be able to pigeonhole them into hourly boxes....
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: So I crawled out from under my rock last night Agreed there!
They want people who actually put the connections to use to have to pay much higher rates (and, like your supposition, it will probably work because they are the 'attached' users) while still making a lot of money on people who are just casual surfers and emailers.
They don't have to worry about stiff competition forcing them to be competitive on prices, nor offer bang for the buck. They can sit back and charge as much as the market will bear and deliver as little as they can get away with.
The situation doesn't look like it's going to improve soon, but hopefully, longterm, it will.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) | |
| | | rugby
I think I know it all.
VIP
join:2000-09-26
Camby, IN | I have no choice for broadband ISP's I"m too far for dsl and satellite isn't an option due to trees. | |
| | bandw1dth
join:2003-02-07
Hoboken, NJ | I agree totally. Where else do you have to sign a contract where 1 party can change it without question? Especially if you have to sign a 1yr or multiyear agreement. | |
| | | soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX
| Re: So I crawled out from under my rock last night said by bandw1dth :
I agree totally. Where else do you have to sign a contract where 1 party can change it without question? Especially if you have to sign a 1yr or multiyear agreement.
When the contract says that they can like ISP contracts, cable contracts, sweepstakes, radio station contests, even McDonald's new "winning time" states that it reserves the right to change the rules at any time.
You are CHOOSING to get broadband. It is not your right to have it.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-09 09:28:06] | |
| | 
EFudd
Premium
join:2001-09-08
Brownsville, OH | soothsayer15:
Just because a person chooses to have broadband instead of dial-up doesn't mean they want to get screwed.
--
Do you SetiAtHome | |
| | | soothsayer15
join:2002-03-01
Irving, TX
| Re: So I crawled out from under my rock last night said by EFudd :
soothsayer15:
Just because a person chooses to have broadband instead of dial-up doesn't mean they want to get screwed.
Yes it does, it means doing without. People are so into themselves they'd rather complain than voting with their dollars. | |
| | |
EFudd
Premium
join:2001-09-08
Brownsville, OH
| I understand where your coming from. Really I do, even though I am defending those people. Yes, they should vote with their dollars and do without if they cant find a better company. I completely agree.
But they really dont want to get screwed even though they wont do without. Thats why they complain.
--
Do you SetiAtHome | |
| vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
| Caps = Crap I cannot and will not stand for caps. I will be a vonage user very soon, and I download movies and Linux OSes all the time. Thats what Broadband is for. Stop being greedy, upgrade the network and call it a day
...wheres the money going to come from?
The CEOs 10,000,000 per month salary.
The BONUSES paid to the AT&T ceo could have made countless telephone and network upgrades to FIBER!!!
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
| | 
Vericima
Beautiful But Deadly
Premium
join:2003-01-07
Manchester, CT
| Re: Caps = Crap It seems our government has the same problem, they all complain that there is not enough money for vital programs, there ar budget cuts all over the place. But that doesn't stop them from voting to raise their pay. this crap needs to stop all together.
--
AHHH! You're wasting CPU cycles, Go crunch something! | |
| | GerryB
join:2003-03-16
Manchester Township, NJ
| Why install a $2,000 per customer network when you already have a network that you can squeeze extra revenue out of? $10,000,000 a month would roll out fiber in one town a month. Plus you have $800 CPE. Plus you have bandwidth that costs $50-100 per Mbps. Think about that a second. | |
| | | vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
| Re: Caps = Crap said by GerryB :
Why install a $2,000 per customer network when you already have a network that you can squeeze extra revenue out of? $10,000,000 a month would roll out fiber in one town a month. Plus you have $800 CPE. Plus you have bandwidth that costs $50-100 per Mbps. Think about that a second.
There are still ways to do it. Fiber is not that expensive, I have done it myself and soon my home will be fiber, you can by in bulk and it only costs 1.5 times more than dirt cheap ethernet cat 5 cable, the only thing that costs is the buffing and terminations.
Its not a cure all, but money is being incorrectly flowed inside of alot of companies. When they start the interest is the customer, then when they get a certain size interst becomes in pushing out competition.
Comcast doesnt want to let Starpower into Maryland, and they are doing everything that they can to keep them out. Starpower is about half the price, and they offer more services to more areas. Thats enough proof of incorrect cash flow to me.
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
| | | 
untroubled1
Redneck Dawg
Premium
join:2001-12-21
Omaha, NE
|  Re: Bandwidth isn't free
--
A Ping In Time Saves Nine (9)Ping Pong | |
| | | 
Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
| Re: Bandwidth isn't free Yeah but what if you don't stop after that 40MB files and instead use the same hour to do 120MB.
I am not saying you would, but there are plenty who would, and thats the problem.
Too many don't see speed as a convenience, but instead something to be used to the very last bit constantly.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West) | |
| | | | 
wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL
| Re: Bandwidth isn't free Oh yeah, see I work "kind-of/sort of" for the ISP side of things, being a support tech for a local University. It was not the concerns of the then fledgling RIAA/DMCA that actively made us seek out "Kazaa" "Napster" and "WinMX" users....it was the abusers. These programs have the capability of throttling the available bandwidth to them to more than sane levels. All it took was *one* person using one of these programs without setting a throttle - to destroy the connectivity on a whole floor of Engineering Hall.
The smart kids let it "trickle in" setting like, 1/100th of the available bandwidth for use at a time. You still get it plenty fast, and best of all, you do not lag and knock mission critical services off the air for the entire campus. Smart, considerate, and deliberate use of any technology is the responsibility of us all. It makes lives easier for other users and the administration.;) Mostly in managing the "pipes" and maximizing the use fairly across all users. We do not restrict the amount of "use" any one or group of persons has here on campus, giving them in effect, "All you can eat" - but please do consume in a manner that shows that you have a working brainstem.;)
I do not know how it is out there for the rest of the world, agreed, bandwidth is NOT CHEAP. We have a few OC level lines coming into the place and it is switched all over campus. We are not at all charged on the "byte" like a metered service. What KILLS us is the cost of having *available* bandwidth. We get charged the same if not even one ATM cell routes out of the place, or in. But 6000 students + Faculty/Staff can certainly eat alot. And to provide the best possible service, we have to balance demand against a set width of "pipes" going in and out. That's where the money comes into the picture - and leaves quite quickly too.;)
--
Northwest Arkansas' ONLY all techno Internet radio network, powered by SBC DSL! | |
| | | | | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
| Re: Bandwidth isn't free said by wolfox :
Oh yeah, see I work "kind-of/sort of" for the ISP side of things, being a support tech for a local University. It was not the concerns of the then fledgling RIAA/DMCA that actively made us seek out "Kazaa" "Napster" and "WinMX" users....it was the abusers. These programs have the capability of throttling the available bandwidth to them to more than sane levels. All it took was *one* person using one of these programs without setting a throttle - to destroy the connectivity on a whole floor of Engineering Hall.
Working as a network admin in college myself, I feel your pain. Luckily enough, I didn't have this problem back in 1997. Napster was coming on strong, but it wasn't as popular back then as it would be the later part of the year. The college had a ton of problems with abusers. It took only 15-20 people to saturate a T3 in bandwidth.
quote:
The smart kids let it "trickle in" setting like, 1/100th of the available bandwidth for use at a time. You still get it plenty fast, and best of all, you do not lag and knock mission critical services off the air for the entire campus. Smart, considerate, and deliberate use of any technology is the responsibility of us all. It makes lives easier for other users and the administration.;) Mostly in managing the "pipes" and maximizing the use fairly across all users. We do not restrict the amount of "use" any one or group of persons has here on campus, giving them in effect, "All you can eat" - but please do consume in a manner that shows that you have a working brainstem.;)
The problem that I had were students not giving a crap. Those were the ones the new admins after I left had to restrict. Most of the campus is now restricted due to abuse. The RNS (resident network support) regularly puts on programs trying to teach students about bandwidth and the importance of regulating it. Most just don't care.
quote:
I do not know how it is out there for the rest of the world, agreed, bandwidth is NOT CHEAP. We have a few OC level lines coming into the place and it is switched all over campus. We are not at all charged on the "byte" like a metered service. What KILLS us is the cost of having *available* bandwidth. We get charged the same if not even one ATM cell routes out of the place, or in. But 6000 students + Faculty/Staff can certainly eat alot. And to provide the best possible service, we have to balance demand against a set width of "pipes" going in and out. That's where the money comes into the picture - and leaves quite quickly too.;)
Excellent post by the way! 
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | It's the "speed" that costs though, not the number of bits transfered across the "speed". | |
| | 
localisp-guy
@rr.com
| Bandwidth may be less expensive for the big ISPs, but for the medium and smaller guys it is not cheap. To get cheap bandwidth in Los Angeles it is about $100/meg for 30 megs. A DS3 ran 40 miles to a rural area is ~ $5,000 a month. Rackspace in a datacenter in LA to get that cheap bandwidth is about $1,000/month. So were up to $9,000 a month. That is $300/meg.
This is obivously before hardware (which would be at least 50K for servers, routers and related equipment to bring good service to customers) and staffing costs (technical support and operations). If you paid the 50K over 3 or 4 years, that would add at least 1K per month. Tech support will run at least 5K a month for two decent support guys. Operations will cost another 6K at a minimum. Figure you have the office and other overhead of at least 2K. Now we are at $23,000 per month for 30 megs. That's $766/meg. At a 10-to-1 that is $76/meg of cost per user-per-month, with the ability to handle only 300 customers and provide excellent service. To earn a 20% profit margin you would have to charge $91 a user and you would earn $4,500 a month profit.
Now these numbers can clearly be moved around a bit here or there, but the point is that bandwidth and related costs are not cheap - even more so for the smaller guys. If we want to be able to use a meg sustained all the time, we need to realize that it could be costing the ISP over $700 a month for that meg... this is why caps must exist in order for the companies that provide good service to be able to stay in business. | |
| | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Bandwidth isn't free You're talking about a colo environment though, not connectivity. | |
| | | |
Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
| Re: Bandwidth isn't free said by JakCrow :
You're talking about a colo environment though, not connectivity.
And what good is connectivity if its not connected to anything???
More traffic means bigger pipes, bigger servers, more rack space, etc.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West) | |
| | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: Bandwidth isn't free said by Hayward :
said by JakCrow :
You're talking about a colo environment though, not connectivity.
And what good is connectivity if its not connected to anything???
More traffic means bigger pipes, bigger servers, more rack space, etc.
Last time I checked, when a company buys connectivity for their locations, they're only paying for the size of the pipe. Colocation is a different animal.
The providers can go ahead and charge all they want per bit for all I care, I just won't be giving them my business if they're going to do so, and I suspect is the case with many other people too. People that want to roll over and get nickled and dimed by a new and artificial revenue stream for the providers, go right ahead, but I won't be paying an extra cent for using my 1.5Mbps to it's fullest.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-08 16:44:32] | |
| | |
Orwell1984
@rr.com
| Using your numbers I came up with about 3 cents per gig transfered if the line is kept saturated.This is why it makes no sense to me to cap overall data transfer.Just throttle during peak hours and let the hardcore downloaders have the off peak time.Also remember all data transfer is paid for twice. Someone paid to upload the stuff. | |
| | 
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| quote:
In the next couple years, all ISPs will be moving to caps. I am sure a couple ISPs will stay with unlimited. Their success or failure has yet to be determined.
I've been hearing that for at least a couple years. Hell, I was hearing that phone companies were going to drop unlimited local calling due to BBS usage fifteen years ago and it never happened. 
I agree with you though. I don't mind REASONABLE metered usage. The trouble comes when they decide that 80% of their user base is using less than 5GB per month and therefore your 20GB will cost you $250/month because you do something other than check your email.
Bandwidth isn't pennies on the GB but it's not dollars on the megabyte either. All you have to do is look at the pay news services (Easynews, etc) which are more or less in the business of providing raw bandiwdth for a profit. They're able to make money on 6GB for $9/month while maintaining servers, and there are better deals out there.
Another problem, at least in the DSL world, is that the phone company is taking the lion's share of the revenue, while the ISP has to pay for bandwidth out of their small margin. I've read that ISPs only make $10-$15 on a typical residential DSL line. Since that small margin must include support and bandwidth costs, I assert that bandwidth CAN'T be as expensive as some people make it out to be, or there would be NO companies in the business of being ISPs. That margin clearly can't cover bandwith abusers, but it should be possible to create a reasonable pricing structure for power users.
-- Rob | |
| | | | | 
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| Please tell me why you think bandwidth is becoming more expensive, even as technical advances are made and fatter pipes are opened up all the time. I still haven't received a satisfactory answer to this question, just vague mumblings about bandwidth hogs, pirates, and theft of service. | |
| | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: Bandwidth isn't free Bandwidth isn't getting more expensive. It's getting cheaper. What's getting more expensive is the poor business decisions that the companies involved have made, and they need to cover their costly mistakes by gouging their customers.
In Korean and Japan, you can get 10 to 20Mbp residential connectivity for the same effective price of the 3Mbp cable connections in the U.S. Hell, there are places in Japan you can get 100Mbp connections to your home now.
Bandwidth getting more expensive my ass....
[text was edited by author 2003-04-09 03:03:35] | |
| |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by Nightfall :
The days of the unlimited internet are over. I could see this problem coming up over six years ago. Today, it doesn't suprise me at all.
Hmmm. Seems like bandwidth is getting cheaper and faster in other parts of the world, while here it's getting more expensive and more restricted.
The problem, of course, is the control and power is falling into the hands of a very few, and their SHEER GREED is the cause and root of *all* these problems.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) | |
| |
EFudd
Premium
join:2001-09-08
Brownsville, OH
| Thats a very good question to those people that keep saying bandwidth is expensive.
I want to see some numbers from them. I can provide some myself. This is here in Columbus, Ohio. Your area may be different.
Dual T-1 with an entire Class C IP range : $2,800/month.( have to double check that to make sure the price didn't go down )
Upgrade that Dual T-1 to a T-3 with the same Class C IP range: $8,800/month.
Thats 15 times the bandwidth for just over 3 times the price. I imagine its only going to get better the more bandwidth you buy.
Where are everyone elses numbers that claim to be working for ISPs? Come on. Back up your story with some factual costs.
Bit caps are not the answer and we already have speed caps. Speed caps are much easier to deal with than bit caps from the customer side. I dont want to be forced to keep track of how much bandwidth I use nor worry about how much its going to cost per mbyte.
I dont want to see ISPs turn into the cell phone companies.
--
Do you SetiAtHome | |
| | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Site5.com
·Comcast
| Re: Bandwidth isn't free The bandwidth is just part of the equation. Look at the cost of experienced personel. No one wants to have idiots working on the network infastructure. Technical support is one area most ISPs are cutting back in.
We can look at your dual T1 example. $2,800 per month plus personel to admin it, plus equipment that depreciates over 4-5 years (that is being generous), and so on. That is a heck of a lot more expensive than $45 a month that people pay.
The true cost of bandwidth has yet to be determined. I know I would like to know this, but no one has stepped forward with legitimate and factual figures. I know that ISPs get the bandwidth a lot cheaper, but no one knows how much. You can say the price is going to get better the more you buy, but that is just speculation.
Myself and others here think that the providers themselves keep the price high so when companies buy bandwidth from them, they turn a big profit. However, that is all just guessing. No one knows how much it costs to keep the internet running.
Anyone an internet accountant?
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| | | | 
DSL987
join:2000-03-22
Helotes, TX
clubs: | Re: Bandwidth isn't free And don't forget that those dual T1's that cost you $2800/month can be saturated by just 3-4 people running Kazaa 24x7. | |
| | | | | | |
EFudd
Premium
join:2001-09-08
Brownsville, OH
| Why is everyone only focusing on the cost of the T-1's?
The entire point of showing what the dual T-1's cost compared to the T-3 was to show you that when you buy even more bandwidth the cost doesn't rise steeply. Its not speculation, as one person put it, that the cost of bandwidth goes down the more you buy.
Yes, a few people can saturate a connection. Thats what speed caps are for. Obviously these residential connections aren't meant for 24/7 use at full speed. I'm not arguing that they are.
I'm arguing that the cost of bandwidth does indeed go down(per mbit) when you buy more and I'm challenging someone to come up with their own factual figures to support why they think bandwidth is horrendously expensive instead of just saying 'bandwidth is expensive'. Which, so far, no-one has done.
I swear, you people are as bad as the news media when it comes to picking out one single thing a person says and twisting it to mean something else.
--
Do you SetiAtHome | |
| | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: Bandwidth isn't free Bandwidth isn't horrendously expensive, so they can't show that it is in any way, shape, or form. It's even cheaper today since there was a huge overbuild of infrastructure in the last few years that was never used because of the .com bomb. The bit quotas are just CYA attempts from the cablecos to a) delay the need for them to upgrade their lagging infrastructures and b) develop a new revenue stream. As soon as they start selling higher bit quotas at higher prices, you'll know it's true. | |
| |
EFudd
Premium
join:2001-09-08
Brownsville, OH
| Heres another interesting little bit of information. Usenetserver is a newsgroup feed provider. For $15/month you can download all you want from them with a speed cap of 2mbit/sec. No gigabyte caps. Just a simple speed cap. This just happened about 6 months ago. They used to have bitcaps.
So why did they go to 'all you can eat' from bitcaps if bandwidth is so expensive?
Heres a link to their site.
»www.usenetserver.com/
--
Do you SetiAtHome | |
| | | | |
EFudd
Premium
join:2001-09-08
Brownsville, OH
| Ok, so my showing $2800 for dual T-1's with a full class C ip range going to $8800 for a T-3 with a full class C ip range doesn't show that the more bandwidth you buy the cheaper it gets? 15 times the bandwidth for 3 times the price doesn't show that its not thoery but fact? This is from UUNET here in columbus. This is not numbers being pulled out of thin air. These are 'solid numbers', as you put it.
Correction to price of those Dual T-1's = $2400. So 3.5 times the price instead of 3 times.
Ok, I can live with not using usenet server as an example, because I dont have the numbers they pay?
--
Do you SetiAtHome
[text was edited by author 2003-04-12 00:34:52]
[text was edited by author 2003-04-12 00:36:10] | |
| | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Site5.com
·Comcast
| Re: Bandwidth isn't free said by EFudd :
Ok, so my showing $2800 for dual T-1's with a full class C ip range going to $8800 for a T-3 with a full class C ip range doesn't show that the more bandwidth you buy the cheaper it gets? 15 times the bandwidth for 3 times the price doesn't show that its not thoery but fact? This is from UUNET here in columbus. This is not numbers being pulled out of thin air. These are 'solid numbers', as you put it.
Correction to price of those Dual T-1's = $2400. So 3.5 times the price instead of 3 times.
Ok, I can live with not using usenet server as an example, because I dont have the numbers they pay?
--
Do you SetiAtHome
[text was edited by author 2003-04-12 00:34:52]
[text was edited by author 2003-04-12 00:36:10]
Solid numbers yes, but not for the broadband industry. The providers have a certain price depending on the area you live in. Sure, we can say, the more you buy the cheaper it is...but is that really true? Do we have solid evidence that is the way the bandwidth providers price things for broadband providers? The truth is we have none. That is my point. The truth is what I and others here want to see. I am tired of the guessing and speculation.
However, as I said before, it is something we probably won't see for a long time.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
|
wolfox
Gentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL
| Vote With Your $$$'s And Feet I had 56k dialup with a local ISP. I went with them because they had #1) A HUGE huntgroup. #2)"Super Modems" that supported my X2 and V.90 USR. (That was smokin' back then in the day) They advertised their service as being completely unlimited. They only required that you be actively using your account in the time that you are logged in. So, no pingbots or open e-mail clients were counted as being "active". Fine I can deal with that. I sign up, send my check, and then happily go home.
For 2 months the service was excellent. My E-mail always works, never had a busy signal, they were a model ISP for a local gig.:) Then one day...my login does not work. I call up, "Yeah, my password's rejected by the server, there is a good chance this is not user error." Turns out, that "unlimited" access is just that, but you could only use their modem pool for 8 hours a day.
I asked then and there at that point "What part about unlimited access is suddenly no longer unlimited access?" To which they had no clear answer. Right there on the spot I cancelled my account. It was no big deal to me when another ISP is just down the road. I signed up with a nationwide provider after that, and they advertised, and GAVE unlimited access. I held onto them until DSL broadband was available in my area 3 years later.
Now, this anecdotal story sorta has a point, but only if the conditions are right for it. If my broadband ISP suddenly were to cap me - I would bail. I signed on for Unlimited, 24/7-365 service, I *pay* for that level of access, and the moment they torque a cap on it I am gone. Therein lies the problem...where do you go when the only viable broadband solutions in your area are all capped???
It's a bad Idea(tm) in my opinion. It will just hamper the growth of broadband technologies and slow the roll-out of future technologies. The few people left, still die hard users - will be left to foot the bill all by themselves. Thus, raising the rates for available services, as limited as they are, across the board...
Oh, and the ISP I moved away from collapsed within 6 short months after "capping" the dial-up modem pool to 8 hours a day...Once a week the cops go through the building and pick up the vagrants that squat there.
--
Northwest Arkansas' ONLY all techno Internet radio network, powered by SBC DSL! | |
| | 
lazarus_
join:2002-08-31
Resolute, NU
| Re: Vote With Your $$$'s And Feet Just look at Australia all the ISP's cap their services and now the people singing up for broadband has dropped. I have broadband to play online, download demos download video clips off IGN and I also like to download anime and Video game/ anime OST (all un-licensed in North America) I have an average download of 40GB a month and a upload of 20GB a month. On the account I have now w/ my isp they say in the contract that I can only download 10GB a month and upload 5GB a month and anything over that I get charged 10$ a GB. So far they dont have a Transfer counter available to the public site so they don;t charge extra yet. But once they do I probably will end up cancelling my account and using school and work to download all my goodies
ISP's will be advertising 40$ a month for their service but neglect to mention the "hidden fees" in advertisements. This will result in bills double or triple of what people were expecting if they are un-aware of what a "bit cap" is.
I was with Bell sympatico last year and left because I racked up a 200$ bill the month they started to impose a bit cap. I never knew about the cap until they had the nerv to phone all angry that I didint have the 200$ in my bank acc. for them to take. I laughed at them, asked them if they would remove the over charge and just take the regular monthly fee. The man said no (until I said I wanted to cancel my account w/ them). I still cancelled the account and will never deal w/ that ISP again. | |
| 
Tekkanano
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Alexandria, VA | Oh yeah, I hate unlimited and love full-time! I like the way my ISP worded their DSL service "Full-time Internet access - Unlimited access". Ain't that sweet! | |
| | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Oh yeah, I hate unlimited and love full-time! said by Tekkanano :
I like the way my ISP worded their DSL service "Full-time Internet access - Unlimited access". Ain't that sweet!
Which simply means its there anytime you want to use it. "Unlimited access" does not equate to unlimited data transfer.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | |
Tekkanano
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Alexandria, VA
| Re: Oh yeah, I hate unlimited and love full-time! | |
| Lexion
join:2003-02-03
Yonkers, NY
| Different perspective The way I see it is this:
There are two levels of general broadband:
Let's call it a Personal and Business
As we all know Business connection is very pricy and the more you want the more YOu can get.
The personal connection is not that fast but pretty cheap.
Going back few years, Personal connection was unlimited, and so is Business connection (Most of the time)
Now, moving to the present times:
Personal connection is getting faster, and people expect to pay flat rate for UNLIMITED connection
Well, as personal connection gets closer to business connection, why businesses have to pay soo much more than regular personal connection.
Telcos, in order to keep getting more money and to be happy with businesses, inpose caps, limits, to show that personal connection is cheap because of all this crap.
This way they still get lots of money for business connections and they keep businesses happy(that's where telcos make the most money) and where regular users are getting screwed.
that's my opinion though.
Hope You like it. | |
| 
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| Take your caps and stick em! I will not subscribe to any service or company that decides to throttle my bandwidth, period.
If Company X has issues with their users, they need to go find them as everyone has an IP address. This shotgun approach to business/life is getting really f*cking old-let's make everyone criminals/bandwidth hogs!
I will not give one penny to any company that decides arbitrarily that I'm using too much of their pipe. Tough sh*t! You advertised "unlimited, always on!" so now you're stuck with me. Otherwise, you are guilty of false advertising. | |
| | myname1
join:2002-07-28
Peoria, IL
| Re: Take your caps and stick em! Well I for one won't give in to these "Nazi" tactics! I PAY $50.00 a MONTH for my broband and I better get the unlimited service I pay for (I live in the US and get cable internet)and also what THEY ADVERTISE or I can take my case to court and sue my ISP for FALSE ADVERTISING......I am sure a judge would see it as such also!! | |
| 
hndrcks
Consider Alternatives
join:1999-11-15
Silver Spring, MD
·Verizon FIOS
·RCN CABLE
| Maybe caps that aren't caps... It seems to me the big $$ problem for the ISP is capacity during peak hours - perhaps if they developed a method of capping throughput during peak loads, then letting it go wide open again during the wee hours, it wouldn't hurt so bad. I noticed a "I download Linux" post farther up - and certainly, this is what broadband is for - but maybe not necessarily at 5:00 pm on a Friday afternoon.
So maybe the unlimited downloading is from, say, 1:00 am - 6:00 am, and the rest of the time is subject to a cap. I could live with that, assuming prices stayed stable and the upper limit during peak time wasn't set at some ridiculous value. | |
| | 
g3ddylee
join:2002-12-09
Lincoln Park, NJ
| Re: Maybe caps that aren't caps... said by hndrcks :
It seems to me the big $$ problem for the ISP is capacity during peak hours - perhaps if they developed a method of capping throughput during peak loads, then letting it go wide open again during the wee hours, it wouldn't hurt so bad.
This is a good point, but then people would just try using it after the peak hour[s] ended, correct? | |
| | | GerryB
join:2003-03-16
Manchester Township, NJ
| Re: Maybe caps that aren't caps... And that would be the point. Look at bandwidth use charts on almost any network, it is flatlined for 18 hours a day, and spikes to the total size of the pipe for ~8 hours. If the use was equal along all 24 hours, then the cost to the ISP for that bandwidth would be reduced by 1/3rd. | |
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Maybe caps that aren't caps... ...uh, it's called "time of day" pricing. American Telephone and Telegraph Long Lines Division pretty well perfected it in the 1920's. It's very effective at moving demand around, and in stimulating off-peak usage.
It is, in the end, such a naturally efficient mechanism that it is universally accepted in telecom. Only the lack of technology, stubbornness, and the undeniable (greed and testosterone fueled) desire of electric power utility executives to build new plants has kept it from being widely applied in the electric industry.
To the extent that Internet access capacity "upstream" of the last mile connection to the customer becomes "expensive" to provide, it is reasonable to expect pricing based on something other than that "last mile" capacity.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| djrobsd
join:2002-01-24
San Diego, CA
| Do DSL companies cap service in the USA I have yet to see a DSL provider put a cap on service. It seems to be the trend cable companies are going to, but not DSL.. Of course, that could change real soon.
If my ISP caps me, I'll move to another one.. And keep doing so until there are none left.. Then after that I guess as a consumer, I'm just stuck with what they give me.
I can always sign up for a T1, those are down to about $549 a month now days.. I know that's a lot of money, but do a little web hosting and bandwidth reselling, and you can bring your costs down to a managable amount, and then you have ALLLLLLLLLL the bandwidth you n33d.. LOL | |
| |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Do DSL companies cap service in the USA said by djrobsd :
I can always sign up for a T1, those are down to about $549 a month now days.. I know that's a lot of money, but do a little web hosting and bandwidth reselling, and you can bring your costs down to a managable amount, and then you have ALLLLLLLLLL the bandwidth you n33d.. LOL
Those lowball priced T1's arent actually dedicated lines. theres several customers on one of those.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | | | djrobsd
join:2002-01-24
San Diego, CA | When I say cap I was referring to a monthly bandwidth limit, not a throughput limitation. | |
| | | | 
Da22in
Buck Fush
join:2002-06-10
Charlotte, NC
clubs: | It's quite simple GREED. In the US, we utilize around 16% to 20% of our fiber optic capacity already in place. Bandwidth is not a commodity, just an excuse for raping the consumer. | |
| | GerryB
join:2003-03-16
Manchester Township, NJ
|  Re: It's quite simple
But, that backbone is not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is getting that bandwidth to residential and small business customers. | |
| |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by Da22in :
GREED. In the US, we utilize around 16% to 20% of our fiber optic capacity already in place. Bandwidth is not a commodity, just an excuse for raping the consumer.
BINGO!
all this talk about how expensive bandwidth is yet you always hear about the 'bandwidth glut'. if theres a glut of something isnt it usually dirt cheap?
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| 
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
·Charter Pipeline
·Verizon west (ex G..
| More caps, less cost? Not yet Why, if all companies insist on capping our usage, does this not lower the price for broadband, now that you can only cost the company a certain amount, and they then recover that amount (plus profit) each month you pay?
Because it's called profit margin, and the companies won't give that up to make the price more attractive. They would rather charge the users they've snared more, than to possibly lose money by charging users less and hoping more sign up and bring in the same profits.
I don't like caps unless they tell you going in about them. To foist the cap on unsuspecting users is not right. They should offer a lower price point in exchange for instituting caps to make more incentive for people to accept them. And if they don't then they should be charge a small price for each gigabyte they are over the cap, or just increase the monthly price t cover unlimited usage. Some may pay it, if they needed. Most don't so a capped, lower priced system would make sense.
Of course, business after the almighty dollar will just restrict the pipe and raise the prices. Most companies today follow this practice and aren't interested in the customers, other than their money. | |
| 
ThirdShifter
Premium
join:2002-03-16
Vernon Rockville, CT | Welcome to Australia All i can is welcome to australia where Unlimited meand limited.
--
Give peace a chance | |
| |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Welcome to Australia said by ThirdShifter :
All i can is welcome to australia where Unlimited meand limited.
Australia has to be the worst country for any kind of connectivity. people may cry about Cox's 30gb cap yet telstra australia has 300 megabytes/month cap and many dialup accounts are one gigabyte per month capped. like i always say "no matter how bad you think you are off, theres always someone thats worse off"
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| timoteo21
join:2002-05-14
Los Angeles, CA
| Bandwidth cost Just to add another data point, I pay $300/month per megabit/sec at a high quality colocation facility in LA. As is common, the "mbps" I pay for is the 95th percentile peak. They take periodic samples of the transfer rate, throw out the 5% that are largest, and charge me for the largest left. If I could keep the data rate constant round the clock, I could move data at about $1 per gigabyte. | |
| SoWhat286
join:2000-07-21
Tulsa, OK
| well You need to stop and think about this.
Unlimited access does not mean unlimited transfers.
Through the years of hearing the word unlimited people
started assuming. I think the term when it came out was to the point of hey unlimited time usage. I for one do not want to see metered service but can deal with it. I would like to see a scaled usage plan if it is put upon us.
c-ya | |
| | DONKEYKONG01
join:2003-03-21
Metairie, LA | Re: well NO CAP!!! how about FASTER UPLOAD??????? | |
| 
jarablue
Always be true to yourself
join:2001-06-11
Worcester, MA
| How about Charge money for extra bandwidth Gee I wonder if they thought of Charging extra for more banwidth. ATT,RR and Comcast charge something like 90 bucks a month for 3.5 down adn 384 up. I would kill if Charter offered that. But the thing is they don't. I am not asking for unlimted but shit make it available to me if I want it. | |
| | desreversti
join:2002-09-03
San Antonio, TX | Re: How about Charge money for extra bandwidth For me, RR charges $45/mo. for 2mbit down/384kbit up. And it is unlimited data transfer, and anyhow there are only me and a friend of mine on my neighborhood's node  | |
| gefflong
join:2003-02-18
Aledo, IL
| stop using the word unlimited I think people would be having much less of a problem with this if the ISP's would stop advertising UNLIMITED usage. Why not just be up front and say what the caps are, then we can decide which ISP we can live with.
I agree that "bandwidth hogs" put a burden on everybody else... but if you are an ISP and you are advertising "unlimited" then these "bandwidth hogs" aren't doing anything wrong. They aren't breaking any rules. If these rules were outlined, then the problem would diminish.
So... stop advertising "UNLIMITED". Be honest already. | |
| |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: stop using the word unlimited said by gefflong :
I think people would be having much less of a problem with this if the ISP's would stop advertising UNLIMITED usage. Why not just be up front and say what the caps are, then we can decide which ISP we can live with.
I do not believe many use "UNLIMITED usage" ads. most say UNLIMITED access which means the network is available for use anytime you want to use it.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | | gefflong
join:2003-02-18
Aledo, IL
| Re: stop using the word unlimited I know what they are talking about, but most people wouldn't. The government makes car dealerships advertise the APR for a reason... because the interest rate doesn't tell the whole story and is very deceptive. Why should cable companies be able to use the word "unlimited" when they know they are just trying to pull the wool over consumer's eyes? | |
| WolfJaguar
join:2003-03-20
Portland, OR
| Unlimited = NOT Get used to it, soon we'll see Comcast and many other larger ISPs go with full caps and metered service. It's a sad sad day, but unfortunetly bandwidth does cost money. I for one, would like to see a more tiered service. Comcast has Standard and Pro, but nothing inbetween or lower like DSL offers.
DSL pricing makes more sense, the telcos get all their money and lose less than cable providers do this way.
SDSL is what I want to go for eventually, and I WILL pay for it in full whatever the cost. I pay for my service with Comcast and I don't even go near 30GB downloads a month. The higher speed of the PRO service isn't necessary for me, for god's sake, most websites can't even push that much bandwidth to me anyhow. | |
|
Zero_db
@attbi.com
| The downfall of corperate america See, here's my problem. I have my computer's routed, and connected to the internet. Both I and my brother are avid gamers. We game daily, possibly for hours at a time. My concern is using the cap because of our gaming time. I doubt it will happen, cuz i can't see quake and anarchy online taking up 30 gigs in bandwidth in a month. But it is still to be considered.
I really dispise these futile attempts to limit the internet. Something that was originally created as a means to communicate after a nuclear disaster has now turned into an unstopable hydra.
With current technologies and future upgrades to current protocols, these companies will not be able to control it any longer.
I ask you this, if one day, and i do see that day arising, but if the day comes where people rebel against the companies, and the internet ceases to exist do to the greed of corperate america's need to put a price on everything. Will not another internet emerge?
The answer is yes. Mostly in part due to there not being any hardware bottlenecks that could cause a conflict.
Personally i see the future internet wielding many more clustered communities interlinked. Without the need for what is known now as the backbone.
This is just another ploy by corperations to squeeze every last bit of money they can out of their service, while trying not to piss of the consumers filling their greedy pockets. These companies sicken me. They are the same companies dodging their taxes, insisting that our country is in a recession, when it is truly not.
Sad truth to it is that america is no longer the land of the free. It is the land of the top 1% screwing the other 99%. What makes it worse is the government backs them up, because the top 1% are part as the government as well. All political bs. The majority isn't being listened to any longer, the economic balance not being preserved.
This is why companies like ford can post higher earnings after they increase their rate of reposess people's car's for having late payments, even if the owner has 3 payments left. Also the reason why companies like comcast can increase their monthly broadband cost by 150% within the last year without any adequate reason.
Only other thing i have to say, is a warning to all these corperations. Your really starting to piss off the consumers, and if you keep pushing the majority, your not going to like it when you get pushed back. Consumer relations is the primary means in what makes and breaks a company.
I hope the consumers band together and deny their funds to keep some of these services alive. We need to start realising that were being taken advantage of, and do something about it. | |
| |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: The downfall of corperate america Go for the "oppressed people" argument if you want, but the big ISPs aren't really getting rich lately. UUNet is just swimming along with WorldCom in bankruptcy court, and BBN/Genuity was so uncertain that Verizon abandoned it's pickup option and almost bankrupted Genuity in the process--so Genuity was sold at a bargain basement price to Level3. No backbone ISP is making money at a rate that inspired big money to bid for Genuity.
I could go on, but the simple economics of the matter are that the big ISP backbone market isn't viewed by your big corporate fatcats as one worth spending a lot of money on right now. Yes, we all have faith that these are tremendously valuable assets--but it's not widely shared by the money guys. (Perhaps this is because knowledgeable fatcats realize that the commodity nature of the lightly used backbone will indeed drive down prices soon.)
Now, if your attack is on the "last mile" providers who bottleneck "access" (the telcos and cable companies), then that is inherently a different matter--but please distinguish your target. I think we'd all like to get around the local stranglehold, but I doubt that many of us would agree that new ISP backbones could magically spring up from clustered communities. Limiting an example to the domestic US, somebody needs to haul traffic from NY to SF--it's not reasonable to expect Columbus, St. Louis, KC, and Denver to build and run the necessary facilities to do it for free.
Anarchy might seem attractive--as it does on the TV in Baghdad right now. However, I don't see any of those guys gleefully plowing fiber or connecting routers--some structure has to be in place beyond 802.11 protocols. (No slight to the current celebrants--who really deserve a chance to let off steam.)
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| |
DSL987
join:2000-03-22
Helotes, TX
clubs:
| said by Zero_db:
This is why companies like ford can post higher earnings after they increase their rate of reposess people's car's for having late payments, even if the owner has 3 payments left.
Uh - there's obviously more to this story than what you posted. Anybody that lets a car get repo'ed under those circumstances should be shot and put out of their misery. | |
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: The downfall of corperate america Agreed.
And people are often the sum of their experiences--sometimes you learn more about them by learning of their experiences. For example, if you find out someone had his car repo'd with only three payments remaining, you've learned a lot about that person. And if he blames someone else for that screwup, you know about all you need to know.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | |
|
|
Bandwidth isn't free