Broadband Glass Ceilings and Caps Should ISPs just bill by the byte? Friday Oct 06 2006 11:48 EDT More conversation on Verizon's 5 gigs a month capped EVDO service being billed as "unlimited" over at Dave Farber's IP mailing list. Brett Glass, of Wyoming ISP LARIAT.NET, has this to say about the debate over the ethics of such a sales pitch:"The real problem is that many consumers are unwilling to pay for the network capacity they use. There's no way for an ISP to make money on a $27.99 per month connection if the customer is using the equivalent of a T1 line (which costs more than 10 times as much as that, even wholesale). Yet, when the customer IS using the connection, he or she expects Web pages -- even those which are bloated with unnecessary, bandwidth hogging graphics and ads -- to come up in a flash. He or she wants to see video instantly and do instant uploads and downloads - Instant gratification." The problem with this of course is that Verizon Wireless EVDO customers are not paying $27.99 per month, they're frequently paying $60-$80 per month, plus tethering and other consumption fees. With Verizon Wireless, the caps exist in part because the company needs to upgrade older towers. His comments do offer some insight into a landline ISPs perspective on the capping discussion, however. The capping discussion usually results in several of our forum regulars suggesting that the industry should move to a "bill by the byte" business model. Vote in our latest poll on whether or not you agree. |
|
Disbelief
Anon
2006-Oct-6 11:58 am
Brett Glass is totally full of itIf ISP can't make money at $27.99, why price your service at that level? The cable guys are constantly touting the very high margins the cable internet business has - approaching 50% for the larger players. This margin is expected to grow nicely as they add more incremental customers over the same costs structure. DSL has similar but lower (35-40%) if my memory serves me. So it is not a business that is break-even or a money loser like Mr. Glass has you believe. | |
| | aztecnologyO Rly? Premium Member join:2003-02-12 Murrieta, CA |
Re: Brett Glass is totally full of itsaid by Disbelief :
So it is not a business that is break-even or a money loser like Mr. Glass has you believe. Economies of scale. For ISP's in Wyoming, it probably is a breakeven business... | |
| | JimiRafeSocial Engineering Specialist Premium Member join:2002-12-26 Cheyenne, WY |
to Disbelief
Disbelief is unaware (since he doesn't provide data access to anyone) the cost of providing such services. While in some areas there is actual competition making T-1 or OC-3 cost reasonable and profitable; Wyoming's physical "pipe" is almost wholly own by QWEST. And since they have a state-sponsored monopoly (really check it out » psc.state.wy.us/htdocs/t ··· 2006.pdf), he is correct on the marginal return. And with the low population\possible customers available in Wyoming, it will be a very long time before any competition will change things for Wyoming -based ISP's. | |
| | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY 1 edit |
Re: Brett Glass is totally full of itsaid by JimiRafe:Disbelief is unaware (since he doesn't provide data access to anyone) the cost of providing such services. While in some areas there is actual competition making T-1 or OC-3 cost reasonable and profitable; Wyoming's physical "pipe" is almost wholly own by QWEST. And since they have a state-sponsored monopoly (really check it out » psc.state.wy.us/htdocs/t ··· 2006.pdf), he is correct on the marginal return. And with the low population\possible customers available in Wyoming, it will be a very long time before any competition will change things for Wyoming -based ISP's. Truer words have never been spoken. There is some hope however, that being Union Telephone Company. » www.unionwireless.com/ | |
| | | |
to JimiRafe
People live in Wyoming?
1 person per square mile. Dick Cheney bought most of the state. | |
|
| |
to Disbelief
Well then what are they going to do when you have TV over IP, are you going to charge per byte or by minute that your TV is turned on? What if you're getting HDTV over IP? Now thats some bandwidth, I get a monthly charges for Simple access and another $2000 for exceeding bandwith restrictions by watching 2 movies a week per month? plus add in voip and internet radio, surfing, coiuld be racking up $3000 a month easy.
Or is someone blowing smoke? | |
| | justin..needs sleep Mod join:1999-05-28 2031 Billion BiPAC 7800N Apple AirPort Extreme (2011)
|
to Disbelief
said by Disbelief :
If ISP can't make money at $27.99, why price your service at that level? The cable guys are constantly touting the very high margins the cable internet business has - approaching 50% for the larger players. I recently came back from sydney australia where EVERYONE has a fixed allocation of bytes per month. Once you exceed that limit, your line slows down to LESS than dialup speed (As far as I am concered, that is unusable). My folks were on the cheapest monthly plan. I chewed through it in half a day, just by downloading open office for them. So we upgraded to the next highest. The next day I chewed through that as well (if you buy a new computer, it needs a LOT of security updates). So we moved to the "big" plan. The big plan would last an average american teenager cable user about 5 days or less. I don't really have much of a point here except to say that some parts of the world have tied down their users usage to a ridiculous extent. I don't think many australian users camp p2p networks or suck down video or game demos or listen to streaming radio from di.fm all the time. They couldn't afford it, even on the largest "all you can eat" plans, the limits are only a few GB peak. It might be a matter of time before american providers move to this model, it is a matter of which big one blinks first and does it. I prefer it to "secret" caps, but hope it is very much higher than the typical limits in oz! | |
|
|
One word BULLSH*T folksI pay $$$ per month for a pipe to internet. Plain and simple. | |
| | |
Re: One word BULLSH*T folksIt's all greed driven. If they think they can charge more, they will. Why? because they figure they can get away with it. | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 12:10 pm
The case for usage based billingThere are various advantages to a usage based billing system, but the main reason is that the heaviest users of the system will incur a proportionate load of the costs. Under the current system the lightest, most casual users bear a disproportionate part of the ISP's expenses to provide service. Here is a link to a BRIEF White Paper(only 5 pages) making the case for usage based billing: » www.kavera.com/KaveraWP- ··· ling.pdfThe conclusions are summarized here, but the whole 5 pgs are worth reading and examine how we got the current system and what the problems are in the current system: Conclusions
The usage based billing strategy is a sustainable, scalable business model
A usage based billing strategy improves profits
A usage based billing strategy improves network efficiencies by leveraging consumption disparity between users to generate more revenue from high bandwidth users
A usage based billing strategy increases the subscriber base without requiring additional infrastructure
A usage based billing strategy can provide flexibility to better target market segments
A usage based billing strategy with Dynamic Provisioning creates new opportunities to offer innovative services as a competitive differentiator
A usage based billing strategy is adaptable to changing market requirements
A usage based billing strategy is adaptable to changes in network usage patterns | |
| | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
2 recommendations |
Matt3
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 12:18 pm
Re: The case for usage based billingsaid by FFH5:There are various advantages to a usage based billing system, but the main reason is that the heaviest users of the system will incur a proportionate load of the costs. Under the current system the lightest, most casual users bear a disproportionate part of the ISP's expenses to provide service. Here is a link to a BRIEF White Paper(only 5 pages) making the case for usage based billing: » www.kavera.com/KaveraWP- ··· ling.pdfThe conclusions are summarized here, but the whole 5 pgs are worth reading and examine how we got the current system and what the problems are in the current system: Conclusions
The usage based billing strategy is a sustainable, scalable business model
A usage based billing strategy improves profits
A usage based billing strategy improves network efficiencies by leveraging consumption disparity between users to generate more revenue from high bandwidth users
A usage based billing strategy increases the subscriber base without requiring additional infrastructure
A usage based billing strategy can provide flexibility to better target market segments
A usage based billing strategy with Dynamic Provisioning creates new opportunities to offer innovative services as a competitive differentiator
A usage based billing strategy is adaptable to changing market requirements
A usage based billing strategy is adaptable to changes in network usage patterns And you think they are actually going to decrease the price for the casual user? No, the price will stay the same, but they will impose a monthly transfer limit and a per MB overage charge like the cell companies do. If they do this, they need to completely uncap the line. If I want 100Mbps for 24x7x365 fine, but I'll pay per MB for it. Otherwise, it's another tactic to extort more money from us customers who are already paying for a product. | |
| |
1 recommendation |
to FFH5
"There are various advantages".. Umm, advantages for WHO? The Megacorp? Of course. But there is NO ADVANTAGE for the end user. People have always paid for 'unlimited' usage. Verizon is just a bald faced liar however.
The consumer doesn't WANT unit billing. If usage based billing is so much better, then why aren't companies doing it today? Well, because the consumer wouldn't stand for it. I for one, would NEVER pay for usage based bandwidth, unless it blocked ALL ads, spyware, trojans, spam, etc. If I have to pay by the byte, then I pay only for the bytes I WANT, not whats forced on me. | |
| | | tsu9 join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL |
tsu9
Member
2006-Oct-6 1:40 pm
Re: The case for usage based billingsaid by karlmarx:If I have to pay by the byte, then I pay only for the bytes I WANT, not whats forced on me. Absolutely correct. I have absolutely no inclination nor desire to pay for a bill inflated by some random jackass' spam, DDOSes, or zombie networks. When the ISPs can gaurantee that I'll only be billed for things I request, then I'll consider the "per byte" method tenable. | |
|
| KoolMoeAw Man Premium Member join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD |
to FFH5
Basing cost on usage certainly makes sense. It works for most all other utilities now...and broadband will certainly hit 'utility' status eventually.
I could not fault ISPs for reverting to that structure. But, considering I make fairly heavy use of my connection, I wouldn't really like it!
The big sticking point, however, is unwanted use. There's no one turning on my lights or running my water without my permission. But there are certainly people using my bandwidth without my permission - Spam. Until there's a method for customers to verify all data using their connection, it's not right to charge them by usage. KM | |
| | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 12:52 pm
Re: The case for usage based billingsaid by KoolMoe:The big sticking point, however, is unwanted use. There's no one turning on my lights or running my water without my permission. But there are certainly people using my bandwidth without my permission - Spam. Until there's a method for customers to verify all data using their connection, it's not right to charge them by usage. A good point. Most ISP's have made good progress on the stopping of SPAM being delivered to the user, but you shouldn't have to pay for even the little that gets by their filters. Also, you shouldn't have to pay for the unwanted broadcast data that hits your line either(especially on shared cable networks). But current monitoring systems used by the ISP's could deduct that traffic from your profile before the billing is applied. In any case, that data could be adjusted out of the billing. | |
| | | | KoolMoeAw Man Premium Member join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD |
KoolMoe
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 1:16 pm
Re: The case for usage based billingI think tools/filters/etc are almost fullproof, this is just opening a big customer-dissatisfaction hole. How it the ISP going to ensure all bytes they're billing me for are ones I specifically requested? What if I disagree?
What if my kid hits a site with 20 popup windows showing movie adverts? Should I be billed for that? I guess...as those pages resulted from a request generated on our side...but that sucks! We have little control over such things despite the latest popup blockers and such.
Per-use just won't work until it's better defined. Maybe connections should be free (like mail boxes) and all content providers should be billed on what they send out (like postage).
I can't imagine the ruckus that would cause on the hill... KM | |
| | | | | |
Re: The case for usage based billingI've argued repeatedly that this would be a marketing nightmare.
If Comcast imposed per-byte billing tomorrow, every competitor would hammer them with ads touting their own "unlimited" service...
And then yes, the debate over the accuracy of usage tracking software. It would be a huge mess.
Even if you're an investor like TK, it just doesn't make any sense. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: The case for usage based billingsaid by Karl Bode:I've argued repeatedly that this would be a marketing nightmare. If Comcast imposed per-byte billing tomorrow, every competitor would hammer them with ads touting their own "unlimited" service... And then yes, the debate over the accuracy of usage tracking software. It would be a huge mess. Even if you're an investor like TK, it just doesn't make any sense. I actually agree completely, I am reminded of a Wall Street Journal article a while back on the future of wireless broadband where it mentioned Verizon's reluctance to truly offer "unlimited" service. The Alltel CEO said something to the effect that Verizon was swimming against the current, the market has spoken, and they want a buffet style all you can eat menu for $xx. For per byte billing to work, EVERYBODY has to go to it simultaneously. If Comcast or Verizon went to it, it would be similar to those World War I charges across minefields in the face of a hail of machine gun fire from their competitors. I can see the commercials now: "Comcast thinks you ought to pay every time your friends send you a picture. We don't." or better yet, some commercials about getting hacked and ending up with a $10,000 bill to scare people. Oh no, per-byte billing is not realistic in the current market. | |
| | | | | | BillRoland 1 edit |
to Karl Bode
Sorry for duplicate post, DSLR is screwed up right now, giving error pages instead of confirmations. Mods please delete. | |
|
|
2 recommendations |
to FFH5
Marketdroid buzzword check: - Leverage: check - Innovative: check - Competitive: check - Differentiator: check - Value-added: whoops, we'll get that in the next one | |
| | |
to FFH5
Right, because are supposed to trust a white paper from a company that SELLS 'usage based billing systems'. Surely that had nothing to do with their conclusions. quote: "Kavera designs and builds innovative Subscriber Management software solutions for the broadband service provider. Our specialty is usage based billing systems. Kavera SMS products gives the broadband service provider the ability to break out of the flat rate service model, and create highly flexible and profitable service plans tailored to specific market needs, based upon usage, bandwidth, or application." -- kavera.com about us page
| |
| | |
to FFH5
A usage based billing strategy increases the subscriber base without requiring additional infrastructure
That's pretty much a lie, isn't it? If you have x of bandwidth for all of your customers, adding more customers is going to increase the load on your network regardless of how much they are paying! | |
| | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 1:02 pm
Re: The case for usage based billingsaid by operagost:A usage based billing strategy increases the subscriber base without requiring additional infrastructure
That's pretty much a lie, isn't it? If you have x of bandwidth for all of your customers, adding more customers is going to increase the load on your network regardless of how much they are paying! Not necessarily. The so-called bandwidth hogs will cut back on their usage to keep their bills from skyrocketing. That way bandwidth is freed up to add more "average" users. | |
| | | | 2 edits
2 recommendations |
Re: The case for usage based billingquote: The so-called bandwidth hogs will cut back on their usage to keep their bills from skyrocketing. That way bandwidth is freed up to add more "average" users.
Flawed analysis which pretends ISPs can't add new customers now due to "bandwidth hogs" consuming too much of the pipe. So Comcast is prevented from adding new subs due to that 1% they send cap warning letters to? You completely fake a correlation here. You also cite, in your original post, data from a company that directly profits from per-byte billing as evidence such a scheme will work....in your portfolio perhaps? | |
| | | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 1:21 pm
Re: The case for usage based billingsaid by Karl Bode: You also cite, in your original post, data from a company that directly profits from per-byte billing as evidence such a scheme will work.... in your portfolio perhaps? I doubt it. Never heard of them before I did a Google search on "usage based billing" and "white paper". But this search also results in other sources making the same points. I just chose Kavera's because it was brief. » www.google.com/search?nu ··· G=Search | |
| | | | | | |
Re: The case for usage based billingSo did you see any objective research in there that supports your point ISPs should bill from the byte, or am I supposed to dig through there myself and do your work for you? | |
| | | | | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 1:28 pm
Re: The case for usage based billingsaid by Karl Bode:So did you see any objective research in there that supports your point ISPs should bill from the byte, or am I supposed to dig through there myself and do your work for you? You asked the question. You do the work. | |
| | | | | | | |
2 recommendations |
Re: The case for usage based billingI think you're confused how this works. You support billing by the byte, you show us how and why it's a better system. Preferably with analysis that doesn't come from vendors who stand to profit from it.... | |
| | | | | | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
1 recommendation |
Matt3
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 1:37 pm
Re: The case for usage based billingsaid by Karl Bode:I think you're confused how this works. You support billing by the byte, you show us how and why it's a better system. Preferably with analysis that doesn't come from vendors who stand to profit from it.... There you go again Karl. Clouding the issue with logic and reason. Stop that ... it confuses poor old Tk. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: The case for usage based billingYa, the use of logic and reason seem to be out dated these days just look at...nevermind. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
to Karl Bode
Also don't forget that when you buy gas or electricity those are physical units that you are removing from the grid... With data there is no aditional cost to the ISP for each byte you use... TKjunkmail is way out to lunch on this one | |
| | | | | | | | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2006-Oct-8 2:51 pm
Re: The case for usage based billingsaid by backness: With data there is no aditional cost to the ISP for each byte you use... TKjunkmail is way out to lunch on this one Yes there is a cost for each byte. The ISP's pay backbone carriers for the amount of traffic they carry on behalf of the ISP. And additional bandwidth has to be added by the ISP's themselves when traffic reaches certain thresholds. Maybe it is you who was out to lunch when they taught the economics of network management. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2006-Oct-8 4:04 pm
Re: The case for usage based billingsaid by FFH5:said by backness: With data there is no aditional cost to the ISP for each byte you use... TKjunkmail is way out to lunch on this one Yes there is a cost for each byte. The ISP's pay backbone carriers for the amount of traffic they carry on behalf of the ISP. And additional bandwidth has to be added by the ISP's themselves when traffic reaches certain thresholds. Maybe it is you who was out to lunch when they taught the economics of network management. Most ISPs (the large ones) have peering agreements which allow them to exchange traffic with other backbone providers for free as long as one side of the link doesn't start transferring an inordinate amount of traffic. So no, they don't pay in that sense. | |
|
| | | |
to FFH5
When I hear arguments like yours coming from a consumer, I can only think that you're either 1) a shill for the ISP Lobby/equipment manufacturers, or 2) You're reality/sentience challenged.
The ONLY group that would gain from per capita usage fees would be the ISP's (and their shareholders).
This new business model would heavily impact development of the internet as we know it. Apps like videophones, VoIP, downloadable games/programs, downloadable movies would not be workable with this sort of business model.
Who's going to pay an extra "bandwidth" surcharge just to be able to download a movie at home? Or talk to their Aunt Sally using Skype video VoIP? If it costs $49.95 to download BF2142, who is going to pay an extra $5.00 in "bandwidth" surcharges?
Per capita fees will kill the development of these sorts of apps.
And I really resent the term "bandwidth hog." That's just marketing hype from the telcos, in a vain hope to gain sympathy for their greedy ambitions.
Net neutrality is the single most imortant tech issue that exists right now. The future of the internet is at stake. | |
| | | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: The case for usage based billingAnd as an ISP, it looks to me that you don't want to pay for the transport costs (yup, it cost $$'s to transfer things like that video you want to watch) of the applications you want to use. Don't, by the way, worry about VOIP, games/programs, I certainly don't...but worry very much about video.
So, not to just be argumentative, who's supposed to pay for say, video transport? You, the consumer? (We've ruled that out.) So, that probably leaves the video provider...which, unfortunately, leads us to the walled garden model of the Internet, which is what all the (rightful) howling about network neutrality is all about.
Bottom line...if you want the a la carte world of the Internet as we know it now, be prepared to pay by the byte...or prepare for an Internet more like over the air commercial tv, with very limited choice (but free transport and content). | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to FFH5
Out of curiosity, which corporate mega-conglomerate wrote those talking points?
It's a load of crap. Bandwidth is by its very nature INCREDIBLY cheap IF you don't artificially inflate the price. Unless of course you really think it costs $900 per month to run voltage down a wire for a 1.5 meg line, or that it somehow costs more depending on whether or not you use that connection. Verizon's FIOS is a perfect example that there's no real limitations on bandwidth other than what the provider offers. Charging more to actually use the bandwidth that's advertised is like charging more money for someone to use the sunlight coming in through a window. The bandwidth is there whether it's being used or not.
The only reason, the ONLY reason, for going to a pay-per-use system is to make more money for the telecom companies. Period. | |
| | | |
Re: The case for usage based billingThis guy is a jackass for a couple of reasons: - T1 has an SLA agreement which guarentees the bandwidth . 24/7/365 - T1's main cost comes from the SLA agreement so again it . is incorrect to compare its cost to the EVDO - T1 is already overpriced because of precedent
On what TK is saying: TK the internet should not be considered a consumerist object, but rather a scientific object. That being said there have to be certain socialist style subsidisies in place that allow it to flourish. In this case the socialism is a microcosm of capitalism. ISPs will never reach a point where they can so accurately measure your traffic and prevent unwanted traffic such that pay by the byte will work. Furthermore, how are you going to set the price without making it completely arbitrary? What is average use? How do we know average us isn't impeded by high prices (see the mess that was our telephone network not to long ago). The only reason someone would want by the byte is if either: a) they are a masochistic corporate ass kisser b) they are too stupid to use the internet for anything other than email c) they want broadband, but don't want to pay the costs and don't want to switch to dial up just to check their email
This leads to one conclusion: ISPs like Comcast currently consider 400GB download to be normal use. Let us divide by 40 dollars a month, that leads to 10GB a dollar. Let's face it the only one that would suffer from a fare by the byte model is the ISPs. Anything else would be unreasonably overpriced kind of like long distance calling is. That and how would they also work with speed tiers. I mean providers still have some capacity limits. The by the byte model is just too flawed to adopt sorry. | |
| | | | KoolMoeAw Man Premium Member join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD |
KoolMoe
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 5:46 pm
Re: The case for usage based billingWhat of these counter arguments do not apply to electricity? Why does that model work? (aside from 'unwanted bytes') KM | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to FFH5
by the byte would really kill the Blizzard patching system for WoW which uses BIttorrent. | |
|
koitsu MVM join:2002-07-16 Mountain View, CA |
koitsu
MVM
2006-Oct-6 12:13 pm
Bill the byte?How about billing residential customers based on 95th percentile -- and only for incoming ("downloaded") data? | |
| | Bill Premium Member join:2001-12-09 |
Bill
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 9:47 pm
Re: Bill the byte?Because per GB billing is much nicer to the consumer. 95% is terrible for those who have "spikey" traffic (most consumers). | |
|
Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 12:15 pm
GreedThe problem is, they don't want their profit margins per broadband line sold to fall. They want it to increase.
So when Pirate Jack Sparrow starts killing the local cable node with Bittorrent episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, they want to up the price for everyone or impose limits to force those users to go elsewhere.
Verizon probably didn't have the casual user in mind, but more of a stockbroker, or businessman who wants his stock quotes and/or email wherever they are. Not Captain Jack Sparrow who maxes the connection out 24x7.
They have a hard time adapting to change. Their answer is to try an impose limits or up the price to prevent upgrading their network. At least, until THEY feel it's time to upgrade the network.
I don't understand how the ILECs and MSOs get away with telling customer what they want, instead of listening to the customer and actually GIVING them what they want. | |
| nathill join:2004-05-03 Bloomington, IN
1 recommendation |
Does this make sense?What other area of business charges the same regardless of how much somebody consumes? I will grant that ISP providers should not advertise unlimited usage then come up with some hair-brained scheme to charge based on usage, but as a person who doesn't download video or movies, I don't particularly care to supplement those who do. I, for one, wouldn't mind a usage based billing plan. | |
| | •••••• | tsu9 join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL |
tsu9
Member
2006-Oct-6 12:27 pm
Silly.If the ISPs want to make less money, by all means bill by the byte. | |
| |
PricingOkay. I buy DSL service. It has a certain "speed", that i am paying for. If i want faster speeds, i have to pay more.
What i'm understanding from this whole "caps"/"per Mb" discussion is that the tele-co's are having probems with their bandwidth because they've sold more services than their network will allow. Now they want to charge more to pay for expanding their bandwidth.
It reminds me again of when the tele-co's were trying to get everyone to pay "per minute" for their phone service instead of flat rates (local service).
The point is that the tele-co's don't seem to understand their customer wants and have over-sold their infrastructure. Now they want their customers to pay for the expansion. If they had built the 'expansion' into their pricing models, they would already have the money to do it. The tele-co's can't (or won't) wake up to the fact that they consciously oversold their network and they haven't invested (until VERY recently) in ANY upgrades to the network. Now that they are starting to wake up to this (maybe) they're frantic over where will they get the money to do the upgrades.
You're going to hear more and more of this kind of BS from the tele-co's. | |
| | |
Takes moneytakes money to make money seams like they dont wan to spend it to upgrade ther networks | |
| | | tsu9 join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL |
tsu9
Member
2006-Oct-6 1:45 pm
Re: Takes moneyThey'd rather spend money on doomed projects, like "web portals." | |
|
|
nowhereper byte pricing will go nowhere and if any isp decides to actually institute such a pricing scheme, then people will start to look elsewhere for companies that don't. the only way for isp's to actually charge per byte pricing is if they all did it at once. that way you trap you capture and trap your customers so they have no where to go. then it just comes down to who has the cheapest per byte price.
nuff said. | |
| | AmnChode Premium Member join:2001-03-27 San Antonio, TX |
AmnChode
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 7:17 pm
Re: nowhereAt least until one of them go back to unlimited to win all the customers back. ISPs have already been through this during the early days. Remember those? when we all paid by the hour (or min, depending upon who you were with). The a few went unlimited, to win customers (AOL being on of them). And I'll be damned, it worked. There was an explosion of Internet use. People love unlimited...whether they use it or not... | |
|
EVDOalex Premium Member join:2006-10-05 Dallas, TX |
EVDOalex
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 12:42 pm
bill by the byte? don't do it!think about this. how much of the spam, virus, or bot traffic consumes your connection?
most people can't stop it until it gets TO you, but its counted as your traffic as soon as it is sent to you by the ISP. and the ISP's will tell you there is no way they will packet sniff everything to prevent improper traffic from being sent your way. in fact, if they got you to agree to bill by the byte, my paranoid self would bet they create their own virii to increase that malicious traffic!
i'll *never* agree to bill by the byte, unless the ISP can guarantee I am paying for traffic that I have actually requested, and can prove it. | |
| | xyar Premium Member join:2001-06-21 Portland, OR |
xyar
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 1:00 pm
Re: bill by the byte? don't do it!The problem as I see it is that the consumers are the only ones who don't have to pay on a usage basis; ISP's and bandwidth providers have to pay for every byte that's transferred, whether it's legitimate traffic or not (unless they own the physical lines). We've become spoiled children who aren't willing to pay their fair share. The society of something for nothing (or near nothing). Now I know the other side of this will have ISP's over-charging for Internet usage, which I don't want either. But I understand the logic. Get it while you still can. | |
|
1 recommendation |
bandwidth is a commodityThe all you can eat price point worked in 1995 when there was nothing to down load through your super fast 28.8 modem. But now there is stuff to download and now there is a real cost in bandwidth.
Here's a great anology. Say you sell water. 99% of your customers are 1 to 2 bedroom houses. However the other one percent is Wet N Wild Water park. Should these people expect to pay the same amount on their water bill? Of course not.
Same thing with internet users. 99% check email, surf movie listings and the weather. 1% streams porn, allows unlimited file sharing, hosts or hosts an always on game server and maxes out the pipe 24x7. Should these people pay the same amount of $? Of course not. | |
| | •••••••••••••• | |
ISP's should ask AOLDoesn't AOL still bill by the hour? I'm sure ISP's would be hugely successful if they copied AOL's business model! Cable and DSL providers should bill by the hour, and by the byte! They could make lots of money that way!!!
Great idea! I hope it materializes.. They would be dressed for success.. Well until some ISP just offer a flat month rate.. | |
| | ••• | |
Bill by the byte......and watch your customers go away. Metered billing is why ISDN for data never really succeeded.
Of course, Verizon et al don't really want metered billing. They want every customer to more than pay for bandwidth of an average customer, then they want some customers to pay even more than that (or get booted). No one gets a break for light usage. | |
| | |
canadian dsl user011
Anon
2006-Oct-6 4:14 pm
Re: Bill by the byte...Here in Canada, Bell is one of the largest DSL providers. Bandwidth costs them about $0.06/GB. Smaller ISP's pay about $0.12/GB. So explain exactly how they can't profit if they charge less than $30/month?
If they want to transfer bandwidth costs then they should charge users what they pay per gigabyte once they go over a cap instead of charging ridiculous rates. | |
|
|
MisinformationOugh, this discussion is driving me up a wall. Verizon's reasoning is not because of "old towers". That's such a generalized and misleading statement. A tower age has nothing to do with performance, there is alot more behind a tower than elevation. Generally, the backhaul and the air interface equipment would obviously have to be upgraded to support a 3G air interface (EVDO, EVDV for CDMA or UMTS, or HSDPA for GSM carriers). Verizon's reasoning on bandwidth restrictions is based in part on two things: 1) Spectrum - There has to be enough available spectrum in a market to support 3G to begin with. Since it's a shared medium on the air-interface, users that have high utilization on the network consume alot of the shared resources. This takes up very precious and limit air interface capacity. 2) Backhaul - When 3G is released in a market, most of the backhauls have to be upgraded to every individual tower. Legacy voice only only (low-speed data not included) utilize 1 or 2 PRI (T1) circuits, which only handle 23 channels. Each channel can be allocated for voice (one call per channel) or 64Kbps per channel for data. The largest restriction that takes major resources to expand on is spectrum. It's limited in most markets, some have spare frequencies, and some are in very tight reuse (ex-PrimeCo markets are a prime example). If you don't have more spectrum to buy, or add to the network, you have to tighten your reuse, which requires more towers to be built and existing ones to be optimized. It all takes alot of resources, and time. You can thank you public officials, and NIMBYs for alot of the delay. | |
| rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Nothing new -- move on...This is such a tired argument. Comparing T1 bandwidth usage with the cost of a single T1 is ridiculous. All business base their profits on volume. If you don't consider volume, think of what the grocery store would charge you if you could only buy one item at a time?
What if you needed to purchase six cans of green beans. You would have to enter the store, grab a can of green beans, pay for it, exit the store and repeat five more times. But the model doesn't price the can based on that kind of consumption. Sure, a customer or two might enter the store only to purchase ONE can of green beans. Given the cashier labor to sell the can, paper bag and printed receipt costs (not to mention scores of other costs just to have a store and present product) the store is losing its ass on this ONE can of green beans. But this isn't how a grocery store prices products or does business. For every one-can, express-lane customer, there are hundreds who buy a full shopping cart worth $100 or even $200.
Why do ISPs want to keep trying to justify their whining with the one-can-at-a-time argument? There should be a bunch of light users and a bunch of moderate users who balance those who consume at the maximum bandwidth 24 hours a day. Base your prices on those statistics and everyone should be happy. Then you won't piss off the guy who is normally a light or moderate user and who gets caught in a bind and has to use his EVDO card to download Windows SP2 on 20 different laptops. | |
| | |
Re: Nothing new -- move on...I'd rather have flat rate utilities.
I've always thought that they would migrate back to a 'pay for what you use' system.
Not sure it would fly this far into the game, though, and I'm sure it would be an administrative nightmare. How many 'my neighbor is using all this bandwidth' complaints would they get? | |
|
Michieru2zzz zzz zzz Premium Member join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL |
...ISP's should offer both that way those who want unlimited pipe's can do so and those who want metered but faster speeds can.
The only problem with metered systems is how exactly are they going to prevent someone from an outside address to create a DDOS and simply flood your machine that gives you a nice surprise on your bill.
Just like school systems have to deal with proxies all the time to kids who want to get on myspace. Even with all there high end filters and blockers student's still find a way around it. So what makes you think simply installing filters to block malicious traffic would help the users from getting one month a bill of 600 dollars and the other 20 bucks next month.
Not only that but unmetered pipe's sound actually easier to manage. So to bring in metered pipe's is taking a direct battle against spam and spyware companies, and that's where all the profits you get from a metered pipe dissappear. | |
| | |
Re: ...Actually you brought up the best part. You create the software to automatically email the custoemr before they hit their monthly allottment. THIS WAS HOW OUR CUSTOMERS FOUND OUT THAT THEY HAD A VIRUS. We would forgive the first time that they got a virus but we would charge them for the overage the second time.
Want to talk about motivation for people to get their infected computer off the internet? | |
| | | Michieru2zzz zzz zzz Premium Member join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL |
Re: ...Oof, that's for the birds :P | |
|
lgkahn7 Premium Member join:2005-02-15 Londonderry, NH |
lgkahn7
Premium Member
2006-Oct-6 5:50 pm
bsthat is the biggest bunch of bull I ever heard their cap is no where near a t1 line maxed out..
a t1 maxed out over the month is 1.5 meg/bit * 3600 * 24 * 30 = 3,888,000 megbit/sec | |
| | AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922 Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX |
Re: bssaid by lgkahn7:that is the biggest bunch of bull I ever heard their cap is no where near a t1 line maxed out.. a t1 maxed out over the month is 1.5 meg/bit * 3600 * 24 * 30 = 3,888,000 megbit/sec What is "1.5 meg/bit"? Meg per bit? If you're multiplying all these things together, why do you end up with a figure that is megbit/sec rather than /month? | |
|
kd6caeP2p Shouldn't Be A Crime join:2001-08-27 Bakersfield, CA |
kd6cae
Member
2006-Oct-6 8:29 pm
dedicated serversDedicated servers for the most part bill the customer by how much they've used. This I don't have a problem with, as speed wise you get an uncapped 100mbps line to your server. You can get unmetered 10mbps or 100mbps servers for more, but if you just run a small web site, or just use your server to send friends files, as I often do since my upstream is rather slow, you can have the advantage of a nice symmetrical 100mbps pipe that can get data where it needs to go at the person getting it's max speed. And usually the allowed monthly consumption is quite reasonable. With this in mind, If ISP's offered the option of a metered but uncapped line, I'd probably think about making use of a system like that. I believe both flat rate speeds and metered connections should be offered, and this is coming from someone who uses their connection for various types of high bandwidth uses, and yes that does include sharing files. So if for example a DSL line is able to go at 8mbps downstream 1mbps upstream, or a customer wants whatever their cable connection can do, then a metered connection like those provided by dedicated server providers wouldn't be unreasonable. I'd go for it, if nothing else to have more upstream than the small amount ISP's offer now. | |
| |
so long to free wireless hotspots.If they go to metered billing you'll see a huge rise in wireless freeloaders, and suddenly people will HAVE to secure their wireless. also probably put a damper on free wi-fi at your local coffee shop. | |
| | ifarrell join:2000-08-10 Willow Spring, NC |
Re: so long to free wireless hotspots.said by drlouis0:If they go to metered billing you'll see a huge rise in wireless freeloaders, and suddenly people will HAVE to secure their wireless. also probably put a damper on free wi-fi at your local coffee shop. And people securing their Wireless connections is bad because? Also Coffee Shops should have secure Wi-Fi. | |
| | | |
Re: so long to free wireless hotspots.said by ifarrell: And people securing their Wireless connections is bad because? Also Coffee Shops should have secure Wi-Fi. It's not bad but it'd be a major pain for a lot of 'un-savvy' people. It would also create a demand that could be filled by someone, generating some revenue (for your local geeks, or more likely the isp who'd probably offer to secure your router... for a price). I wasn't necesarily pointing out downsides, just changes. Sure coffee shops should secure their wireless... but I'd be shocked if they left it free under a 'per bit' pricing structure. If they did you can bet I'd go to Starbucks for my next Linux .iso download, and let them foot the bill. | |
|
1 recommendation |
AveragePowerUser8b24
Anon
2006-Oct-7 2:17 am
The 'dumb pipe' should be public infrastructure.Executive Summary: *Data services should be a dumb pipe to the house, like roads, water, sewer, and power services. *Extremely basic (slow data rate) service should be free, and upgrades to that service should be sold very close to the real cost with a small profit margin. *The consumer should have the ability to purchase upgraded data rates and MARK established connections to use those data rates at their own choice. Anything not receiving that upgraded service mark, both incoming and outgoing, would be treated as a free level service (and not billed). *This idea is unpopular with corporations, and more taxes (even when the taxes would be recovered over time) are unpopular, so the average consumer won't realize the benefit to them and corporations will heavily lobby against this.
Like roads, water, sewer, and until recently, power, access to the global data network should be a 'dumb pipe' service like every other standard of living improvement we'd recognize as part of civilization. In every one of these cases it is obvious that building one redundant connection all the way to, or very close to, dwellings is the obvious way to go. Your house, apartment, etc only has one road, power line, water line, or sewer line, but just a block or two down the street it enters a network which is (should be) redundant. This way major maintenance or capacity upgrades can occur without disrupting service to more static areas.
The exact same method should be used for data networks, both for sending and receiving data. A community might charge a very small tax for standard, basic, capped rate, uncapped use service. The equivalent of a phone line with maybe lowest priority transmission of any packets above that fixed data rate. This would be enough for email, very low end website use, and slow access to security updates and new software. If you want to buy dedicated 'broadcast' or 'multicast' read only content, like local news stations, PBS, or other 'free to view' video/data feeds those may be extra, or provided as part of the basic service. Switching from broadcast to on demand data routing would also have the advantage of allowing recovery of public airwaves for use in either private or licensed uses in other areas.
Anyone who wants to buy additional service could choose different data classifications at different costs. These would be automatically marked by their operating systems/applications using a priority system. A working set of priority flags is already embedded in to the Internet (TCP/IP) protocols. A connection without priority service, would simply have those flags reset. Any other connection might very easily be based on a fixed rate to allow flagged data messages through. Though the routing software would have to be slightly changed to enforce incoming data priority based on what the consumer's computer/profile dictated. In that way a smarter browser could mark any content not coming from a known good/other website with only the 'free' service level, and the returning data would be given the 'free' priority and service level. That should only require a small additional memory/software requirement, especially if any not classified connection was assumed to be free (the majority case) since they would not need to be stored.
A business class connection might have different defaults, and/or multiple redundancy delivered to their doorstep. Some consumers might enjoy that level of service as well. For the highest level of service consumers and businesses should be sold the data in rates/sec blocks of usage at rates very near the actual cost. I am thinking the total cost (Zero profit, but reasonable (5-10 year) return on investment per line, with the cost dropping down to the maintenance/upgrade costs on older lines.) per bit with a small (1-5% maximum) overcharge for some profit. In a truly competitive and well built market I would imagine that that data costs would drop fairly low. Not being an industry insider I have no idea what the real cost numbers are, but suspect multiple major markups. A fully anonymous usage, but totally open set of books (IE just remove all physical locations/names lower then zip code level) would ensure that the public wasn't being raped for profit as we currently seem to be.
That is the solution to our problem as I see it, but I doubt it'll be popular with anyone except informed users, and will of course never be implemented. As far as I'm aware all the above concepts are so obvious that they should be public domain. | |
|
| |
|
|