HP Exec: Costly Metered Pricing Is What Consumers Want And uh, by the way, buy some related HP network technology Last week we discussed at length how the investment community would like the public to believe that the shift to low cap and high overage broadband pricing is " inevitable." We also discussed how cable industry lobbyists would like the public to believe that such a shift isn't about making more money, it's about helping the poor. Not only is the metered billing push absolutely about making money, it's about artificially constricting the pipe to protect uncompetitive carriers and TV revenues from Internet video. But instead, there's a very concerted effort afoot to portray this shift as necessary, inevitable, and even altruistic. Most consumers prefer the simplicity of flat rate pricing, and understand that ISPs are perfectly profitable under the flat-rate pricing model. They also understand that this is a pipe dream forged by never-satisfied investors, and once implemented ends with ever soaring per gig fees and ever shrinking usage caps. The PR campaign continues this week, with Hewlett-Packard's Joe Weinman claiming at GigaOM that not only is such a pricing shift "inevitable," but that it's a shift that actually originates with consumers, not investors or ISP executives. Weinman starts out on the wrong foot immediately, by confusing "pay per use" with low cap and high overage pricing models: For the record, I like unlimited Internet access just as much as anyone else. However, such plans appear to be on their way out, and here’s why. As I’ve explored in "The Market for Melons", pay-per-use is not an evil plot by greedy robber barons, but a natural outcome of independent, rational consumer choice. Consider a town with an all-you-can-eat (flat rate) buffet and an a la carte (pay-per-use) restaurant. Smart shoppers on diets will save money by patronizing the a la carte restaurant, whereas heavy eaters will save money by visiting the buffet....Bottom line: it is not the proprietors driving this dynamic, but the customers themselves acting out of pure, rational self-interest Except for the thousandth time, ISP's are not interested in real pay per use plans because the majority of their users (who simply check e-mail a few times a day) would downgrade to $5 tiers and cost carriers billions. What ISPs are proposing is flat-rate pricing with costly per gigabyte overages (completely detached from any real-world costs, which for ISPs are fixed or dropping) layered on top. Meanwhile, the suggestion this is a consumer driven push is absurd. This is an investor driven push for obvious reasons, and you have to wonder if Weinman saw the consumer reaction when Time Warner Cable proposed charging consumers up to $5 per gigabyte -- then insisted such pricing was for their own good. Weinmen offers up a second post in which he hallucinates a laundry list of supposed benefits that will occur from this change in pricing paradigm. Most of them revolve around technology platforms designed to aid this monitoring and metering of usage and billing, which we'll go out on a crazy limb and guess is precisely what Weinman is selling at HP. Unfortunately, Weinman begins his sales pitch just like the cable industry traditionally has -- by pretending this is an inevitability consumers want, and that such a pricing shift is financially necessary. Neither are true.
|
  Frankis chillingPremium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere | no it's not most people dont want to think about how much internet they are using or have another variable bill to deal with.
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida  | |
|  | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: no it's not Just like most people don't want to think about how much water, electricity, gas, or toilet paper they're using. I doubt we'll see much in the way of variable bills. Has their been a huge outcry of iPhone users on AT&T's 2 GB plan regarding overages? | |
| | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: no it's not said by openbox9:Just like most people don't want to think about how much water, electricity, gas, or toilet paper they're using. I doubt we'll see much in the way of variable bills. Has their been a huge outcry of iPhone users on AT&T's 2 GB plan regarding overages?
the problem is the telecom crooks would still try and charge us 40-60 bucks a month on top of a fully metered service.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | | | Re: no it's not And that is the problem; these people will want the nice fat recurring revenue from $50 a month (for doing nothing at all) and then a use-based billing model that completely discourages any use at all.
These people have never listened to what "the consumer wants". That's a red herring, for if they listened they would have implemented ala carte pricing for those consumers who want it.
The more I think about it, the more I think landline based ISPs are in for a tough sell. Wireless carriers have always had some level of use-based pricing, so the consumer has dealt with that for a long time. But all those years of hawking "unlimited" is going to bite them in the butt because now the customer is very, very price sensitive. | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | I've been suggesting from the beginning of this debate that consumers will never see a $5/mth bill and that the cost of metered, or buckets of bits, will be in addition to a "service connection" fee. Not much different than paying your electric or water bill. Even if a customer uses 0 bits, there's still a cost of doing business for the provider. There will be a minimum fee for service regardless of usage. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Re: no it's not most likely what they will do is offer a low teaser rate that no one can refuse which will cause the shift from the unlimited to the limited plans. then as they do the prices will creep up both on the monthly 'maintenance' fee and the useage fees. because the economy is what it is and so many people even those that are 'alright' are looking to trim where ever they can. people will switch by droves and it'll be a one way gate. if you keep unlimited you're good but as soon as you change it's gone forever...
the other thing is that people don't have any idea how much bandwidth they actually consume. my parents for example still think they are light weights but they both youtube and hulu etc not constantly but more than they realize and much more bandwidth than they realize.
--
my site | |
|
| | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:5 Reviews:
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Those utilities are billed on actual usage. The bullshit internet metering is about charging the same amount as today for a laughably low "allotment" (aka usage cap) and then raking in huge profits when you exceed that allotment. Unlike "rollover minutes"*, usage counters just reset at the end of the month. And yes, iPhone users (and all the others) complain about data caps and overages.
* see, even cellphone providers have stepped back from their old cap+overage systems. many (most?) even offer unlimited airtime plans. | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: no it's not said by cramer:Those utilities are billed on actual usage. I don't know about your utilities, but all of the utilities (both municipal and private) that I've done business with over the last 30+ years have all charged a base fee, then billed by actual usage above that. That's exactly what I'm describing. For example, you'll get 50 GB for your $X/mth, then you'll be charged $Y/GB beyond that.said by cramer:And yes, iPhone users (and all the others) complain about data caps and overages. Can you point me to some legitimate complaints, because aside from an occasional geek complainer here or there, I haven't seen anything that suggests that a majority of consumers have any issue with a 2 GB/mth cap with their iPhones.said by cramer:* see, even cellphone providers have stepped back from their old cap+overage systems. many (most?) even offer unlimited airtime plans. And as the value of voice minutes erodes, we're seeing the mobile wireless providers swing back to caps and overages for data plans. Whether capped or metered services are needed or not, I do believe some form or combination of them is inevitable. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the problem is the service charge+fees will mean less savings than they are claiming. they will charge a minimum of 40 bucks most likely just to have the connection itself.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | metered capped internet is krap and not worth the problem.time to go back to reading books and stuff. | |
|
| | yikes Attention shoppers!! | |
| jus10
join:2009-08-04
Sterling, VA Reviews:
·Comcast
| So I'm assuming prices will come down? Because if we're continuing with Melon head's metaphor, the only reason the economically conscious shoppers would choose a la cart over the buffet would be that that a la cart would be cheaper. If that's not the case, then they can go to the buffet and eat whatever portion they desire.
Where do they find these people? | |
| |  coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
·Windstream
| Re: So I'm assuming prices will come down? said by jus10: ~snip~
Where do they find these people?
...right next to the table with the cash and donuts...
JMHO
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC | |
| | nonymousPremium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
| Yes but the buffet is for fat greedy all you can eat slobs. The nice people who are attractive just check their email and eat al a carte. Buffet people are bad and deserve to pay more. So trying to play the two groups off each other and try to make the al a carte people feel Superior to the others. | |
| | |  ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | Re: So I'm assuming prices will come down? said by nonymous:Yes but the buffet is for fat greedy all you can eat slobs. The nice people who are attractive just check their email and eat al a carte. Buffet people are bad and deserve to pay more. So trying to play the two groups off each other and try to make the al a carte people feel Superior to the others.
Quit trying to stereo type people. I am a nice and attractive person that is not a fat, greedy slob and I love the buffet. I can go in and choose from a wide variety and can eat as little or as much as I want. I don't have to pick one particular item and instead have a variety.
Just because YOU like to be held to one item doesn't mean everyone else should be. | |
| | | | nonymousPremium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ Reviews:
·Callcentric
| Re: So I'm assuming prices will come down? said by ropeguru:said by nonymous:Yes but the buffet is for fat greedy all you can eat slobs. The nice people who are attractive just check their email and eat al a carte. Buffet people are bad and deserve to pay more. So trying to play the two groups off each other and try to make the al a carte people feel Superior to the others.
Quit trying to stereo type people. I am a nice and attractive person that is not a fat, greedy slob and I love the buffet. I can go in and choose from a wide variety and can eat as little or as much as I want. I don't have to pick one particular item and instead have a variety. Just because YOU like to be held to one item doesn't mean everyone else should be. That would be the next spin. Normal people check email, read the news. Maybe a few basic things, boring. Not those that sample the buffet. Who knows what they are doing. Probably evil things like torrents, netflix, posting on who knows what message board. Anything beyond email and a few sites are evil. The net is a wicked place and those who sample all its delicious sites are therefore also evil So say the ISP. | |
|
| elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by jus10:Because if we're continuing with Melon head's metaphor, the only reason the economically conscious shoppers would choose a la cart over the buffet would be that that a la cart would be cheaper. If that's not the case, then they can go to the buffet and eat whatever portion they desire.
Where do they find these people?
Time Warner's proposal last year would have cut our monthly bill in half*, along with that of my mom, sister, and a dozen relatives who simply don't consume much bandwidth. Indeed, it would be cheap. ($15/1GB, $2/GB thereafter).
But before a discussion could take even take place, "consumer advocates" across the nation shouted down TWC, who withdrew with its tail between its legs. | |
| | | | | Re: So I'm assuming prices will come down? said by elray:said by jus10:Because if we're continuing with Melon head's metaphor, the only reason the economically conscious shoppers would choose a la cart over the buffet would be that that a la cart would be cheaper. If that's not the case, then they can go to the buffet and eat whatever portion they desire.
Where do they find these people?
But before a discussion could take even take place, "consumer advocates" across the nation shouted down TWC, who withdrew with its tail between its legs. Because they were lying and what would have been implemented soon would be nothing related to what was promised. Once you open the door to this S_H_I_T the crooks will have a field day with users. | |
| | | | | You actually think they are going to impliment a plan that lets people pay LESS? They aren't going to cut their profit, they want to increase it. The goal of these plans is the same fixed rate you pay now with very low caps (5G) and very high overages with no caps on the overage amount. Use 15G in a month, your bill will double. But you will NEVER pay less than what you paying now. If you are dumb enough to think they would let that happen and slice their profit margins than I can't help you. | |
| | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by elray:Time Warner's proposal last year would have cut our monthly bill in half*, along with that of my mom, sister, and a dozen relatives who simply don't consume much bandwidth. Indeed, it would be cheap. ($15/1GB, $2/GB thereafter). You don't actually believe that do you? Hey want to buy some gold mines in florida? | |
| | | | | | Re: So I'm assuming prices will come down? said by BF69:said by elray:Time Warner's proposal last year would have cut our monthly bill in half*, along with that of my mom, sister, and a dozen relatives who simply don't consume much bandwidth. Indeed, it would be cheap. ($15/1GB, $2/GB thereafter). You don't actually believe that do you? Hey want to buy some gold mines in florida? He already made a good investment in a bridge purchase in Brooklyn, the goldmine does not even come close. | |
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by BF69:said by elray:Time Warner's proposal last year would have cut our monthly bill in half*, along with that of my mom, sister, and a dozen relatives who simply don't consume much bandwidth. Indeed, it would be cheap. ($15/1GB, $2/GB thereafter). You don't actually believe that do you? Hey want to buy some gold mines in florida? Yes, I do believe it - and I have reason to.
While I would always prefer the quality of service with the Bell monopoly, and there have been many bumps along the road towards quasi-deregulation, the overwhelming result has been faster, better, cheaper - all benefiting the consumer immensely, compared to the old model.
The only real exception to the vast improvement in price:performance is with traditional pay-tv, wherein the players seem comfortable to blame each other for bundling and locked-in price increases, despite the threat of competition from three other players - and they're just buying time, as technology will force their hand.
My broadband, telecom, and wireless costs are less than half what they were a decade ago, with greater service levels. The only costs that keep increasing come from the government.
Every year, every major telco / cableco in the state, revises their broadband offerings, several times, and at least half the time, they're offering a better price point.
I know that the MBA spreadsheet-jockeys at telco and cableco want to charge whatever you're willing to pay for the "unlimited data hog 50Mbps" tier, but they also want to win MY business, that of my Mom, Sister and Brother, who will happy with "Grandma" 1M service, a 1GB cap, for $15, where we might "cut the cord" at $45+ for uncapped service. Yes, they're greedy, and that's a good thing - they want ALL the business, and they'll fight for it.
So yes, unlike the vocal majority on this forum, I do believe that industry actually will come through, as they have repeatedly. | |
| | | | |  jonnyzPremium
join:2003-03-20
Canfield, OH
·Armstrong Zoom ..
| Re: So I'm assuming prices will come down? You love the telco model so much, I'm surprised you're not asking for what you actually want - Pay-As-You-Go service. Metered billing may help very low usage users but hurts everyone else. You should be instead advocating for the cell phone providers' model of adding an additional option / revenue stream known as Pay-As-You-Go to their line-up of bandwidth tiers for the simple to calculate price of $2/GB used. How did I get that number? Let's take Comcast's $42.95 12/2 tier with 250 GB ' usage cap'. That comes out to 17¢ per GB. I then tacked on an 1176% mark-up to keep the ISPs happy. Tack on some $10 "modem rental fee" to satisfy your need to pay more and their desire to make more and even the corporations might consider it...
--
Join the RC5 team. | |
| | | | | | | I don't know how your broadband/telecom/wireless costs have gone DOWN unless you are a power user. If you were paying $.75-$1.00 per minute when mobiles first came out, I can see that your bill would be cheaper now with a $69.99 or $99.99 unlimited plan.
What you miss is that the BASIC service will not go down in price. Just like it hasn't for any of the comm services. Cable used to be $15 for 50 channels. Now, the minimum is $50 for 120 channels, many of which are useless. Can't get basic cell plans at $20 anymore, nor DSL for $30. Don't throw the teaser rates into the equation because that is all they are, and when the regular rate kicks in it almost doubles the bill. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| They might get it... since the entertainment industry and cablecos and telcos pay millions in dirty money to Congress and the regulatory agencies. Congress will never vote against the very people that contributed all the millions to their election funds that got them into office in the first place. If they want to stay in office they will d*** well vote the way their owners want. Sometimes I wonder how much it actually costs for a vote in Congress? Do they print a chart? That would be a huge wikileak if someone would get ahold of it and print it, but whoever did the leak would be sleeping with the fishes within hours.
metered billing would be a disaster to advertisers - people would simply figure out how to block every single advertisement in order to cut down on bandwidth use. | |
| OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| We are heading back to the future This seems to be going backwards to the dial up era. Early dial up was all charged per minute. It slowly evolved to flat rate monthly pricing of about $20 per month. This was due to consumers dislike of large overage charges and lots of competition.
Broadband started in this market for fixed monthly fees. Now, they want to head back to per minute pricing. Since consumers still do not like large overage changes, the logical conclusion is that there is no competition.
As an aside, instead of focusing on Net Neutrality, I really think the government needs to foster competition for Internet services. The pipe to your home should be a single high performance connection that is sold as a regulated monopoly. Everything else (Video, Internet, and Phone) should be wide open to competition. | |
| | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:5 Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: We are heading back to the future Actually, I'd say it was all down to competition and consumers following the cheapest path to the same internet. More hours became a selling point along with falling prices -- more hours being a more cost effective option than lowering prices on something with razor thin margins to begin with. (What was AOL's "intro" deal -- back when they sent out floppies? 175hrs? When you cannot afford to lower the price, up the hours.)
Today, don't have anything near the same quality and quantity of competition. Consumers still want to the cheapest path to the internet, we just have almost zero choice... when you have more than one choice, they're all the same pile of shit with different flies -- cost is relatively the same, speeds are mostly the same, BS attempts at caps and overage fees are the same. | |
| | | | said by OwlSaver:This seems to be going backwards to the dial up era. Early dial up was all charged per minute. It's even worse than that. At least in the old days of dialup, you had control over what you were charged. You dialed in, used it for an hour, and logged off, and you knew you had used it for an hour. But you have little or no control over how much data you're using, even if you don't say logged on. If you go to a web site, you have no idea how much data it's going to use. Maybe it's going to have a lot of graphics, flash animation, imbedded video, or a bunch of banner and pop-up ads. Maybe you accidentally go to the wrong page, and your machine gets hijacked. Maybe someone decides to run up your bill by sending huge amounts of data to your machine.
Another unintended consequence I can see is that people might be reluctant to download the updates for their OS or antivirus because of the cost to do so. | |
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Help the poor? Give me a break. These gluttons for cash know they will garner zero sympathy from a public they've been ripping off in grand style for years. So they say it's for the poor. Now we're raising your rates for the poor. How can you be so heartless? What, are you against poor people?
Just like every BS censoring of TV & radio is "for the children".
Quite frankly, just about everyone I know that can afford the constant cable rate hikes are all ready doing enough for the poor.
I've got an idea. Stop spending money on lobbyists and donate THAT money to the poor. Or, give the poor your service for free.
But don't try and push your (meaning the cable co's) constant rate hikes on the public under the guise of helping the poor.
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
| | | Send in the Drug Dogs I think there is need for dogs and blood tests. These people are showing sights of being on something. | |
|  Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN | This is why we need competition When dial up made it almost trivial to switch ISP's prices were low and people could access what they wanted without concern for fees.
Now that we are forced to choose between DSL which is terrible in many areas, or cable which is usually a single provider, prices are going up and the service is getting restricted.
We need more ISPs serving home broadband! | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| | So what! Has it ever occurred to anyone that the internet and infrastructure behind it just isn't meant for video delivery? And it's not some big conspiracy? Maybe someday when bandwidth gets cheaper and technology increases capacity enough at prices providers can afford.
Until then is it so surprising that every provider wants to get more out of subscribers so they can attempt to keep up with upgrades and stay solvent, and be around in 3~5 years? | |
| |
See 31 replies to this post | |
| | So cutting demand for services would be good for HP? So let me get this straight; consumption based billing, which would certainly lead to less demand for 3rd party services from Google, Netflix and other major tech companies would be good for HP's business?
Really? Really?
Do these idiots really think that consumption based billing helps anyone other than cable/telco investors at the expense of everyone else including consumers and competitors?
HP Exec...let me tell you how this would really work.
Currently service is typically $45 -$50 for unlimited use (or something resembling it...200GB/mo or some other type plan).
Consumption based billion would be
$45 for breathing, $5/GB for actual use of the service. | |
|  DrZEUS
join:2004-01-13
Mississauga, ON | bye bye internet welcome to the eventual reality in Canada....the internet as we know it is going by the wayside....it is becoming a luxury. | |
|  runnoftPremium
join:2003-10-14
Deerfield, IL
kudos:1
·Comcast
| It's like he's reading my mind Wow. This HP guy is so dialed into our psyches it's scary. You know what else us consumers love? Printer ink priced more expensively than liquid gold... with expiration dates on the ink cartridges, so they have to be replaced even if they still work or are refilled. We love that. I only wish we could carry his kind of thinking over to other more competitive markets. | |
| | | | Re: It's like he's reading my mind said by runnoft:Wow. This HP guy is so dialed into our psyches it's scary. You know what else us consumers love? Printer ink priced more expensively than liquid gold... with expiration dates on the ink cartridges, so they have to be replaced even if they still work or are refilled. We love that. I only wish we could carry his kind of thinking over to other more competitive markets.
The US car manufacturers did and see where it got them. I do not want the US to lose its lead in each industry one by one by using this greedy model. | |
|
| | let me pay less! I got an idea, then let me pay a miniscule rate to the cable/sat company for my usage of my TV....I hardly watch it, but I have to pay the same rate the fat slob that sits in front of it all day does...think they'd like to get less from me?
This is why they went to unlimited txts and data usage on cell phones...nobody was willing to pay huge amounts for usage they couldn't quantify. Flat rate fees just simply work in these kinds of business models. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | What consumers want.... Is for these large corporations to STFU when they have NO CLUE what the consumers want. HP, stick with what you know, building computers and STFU.
Or maybe it's just me who want this.... | |
| | | | Re: What consumers want.... said by Cheese:Is for these large corporations to STFU when they have NO CLUE what the consumers want. HP, stick with what you know, building computers and STFU.
Or maybe it's just me who want this....
After Fiorina HP does not know how to build computers anymore. Looking at all the dying HP servers and laptops I have, their quality went down the drain. | |
|
| | | | Re: Incumbent Telephone Companies tried the same thing in 1997 You are absolutely correct. Let's see what the cable shills will say in 3,2,1.... | |
| | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:5 Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| To be a little more accurate, they were very happy -- at first -- to sell a whole bunch of business lines (at ~40-60$ each). Their happiness evaporated when they saw those lines being used 24/7 -- it didn't fit their historic usage model, over loaded switches and trunks (and in some instances caused problems with 911)... their capacity planning and forecasting were forever ruined.
I worked in dialup in those days. I don't recall the Al Gore or Clinton doing anything to "save dialup". (Note: by then broadband was on the rise and dialup was circling the bowl.)
[Actually, towards the end of the days of dialup, telco's finally got their collective glacial ass in motion to become ISP's themselves -- finally realizing there was money to be made in internet access*. In order to undercut and price their competition out of the market, they tried and failed to raise rates. This had little to do with the feds and had everything to do with PUC's regulating prices. (they were already regulated (still are); these were not new rules.)]
[* it took the idiots several years to see the market for DSL, all the while being a roadblock to DSL deployment; doubly so when they started selling DSL. dsl wasn't a regulated service, so they got away with it... and that's why we have few 3rd party dsl providers today.] | |
| | |  tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Incumbent Telephone Companies tried the same thing in 1997 said by cramer: I don't recall the Al Gore or Clinton doing anything to "save dialup". The ILECs wanted to charge more for data traffic then voice. Their argument, which was not without merit, was the PSTN was not designed for the long call hold times common when used for data. Typical voice calls is a few minutes, data calls are hours.
The FCC balked and forbid them from discrimination based on the type of traffic. As long at the ISP was able to locate their POP within the local calling area the call was free for the customer. Of course the ISP had to pay for expensive business class lines.
The way this played out was ultimately to the benefit of the Telcos. Because there was no marginal cost to using the Internet it encouraged experimentation which in turn drove the desire for every higher speed by customers.
We are seeing much the same dynamic play out today. ISPs want to charge as much as possible right now. That will probably be good for their balance sheets in the short term but will inhibit long term growth in demand because it will discourage experimentation in novel forms of Internet usage.
As others have pointed out the cost of transit bandwidth is very low. This battle really is not about Internet usage it is about creating a pricing model that protects legacy TV distribution.
/tom
| |
| | | | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:5 Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Incumbent Telephone Companies tried the same thing in 1997 That's exactly what I said... dialup trashed their decades old traffic and engineering models, forcing them to redesign their infrastructure. That was expensive and pissed them off. The fact that Uncle Sam footed part (most?) of the costs didn't matter.
And if wasn't so much the FCC's intervention as it was being too close to running afoul of wire tapping laws. It's rather had to know a call is voice vs. data without actually listening in -- except for ISDN. Attempts to charge ISPs more for their business lines and/or end users for calling those numbers were blocked by local public utility commissions -- who were in charge of regulating those charges, and still are. | |
|
| | Greedy Companies Thats a poor answer JaspnOD.
I've done personal work for some of the big companies, and i've had the pleasure of going to other parts of the world to see first hand what the infrastructure is like in other countries.
We have the capability here. There is no bottle neck, there is no real stress that is cause for caution currently.
What this country lacks is a consumer activist group that will actually fight for the people.
I currently pay 70 bucks a month for 20/3 service.
For the same amount in other countries, you can get triple and quadruple the speed with unlimited service.
This is just a ploy by the big cable and tv companies to try and restrict the internet out of fear that its going to canabalize the cable industry.
They have good reason to be afraid, just like streaming movies and redbox killed the rental companies, so is the inevitable fate of the cable tv.
Technology permits evolution, and this is natural evolution, just like what is happening to the music industry. | |
| | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: Greedy Companies said by Tech Guy 101 :We have the capability here. There is no bottle neck, there is no real stress that is cause for caution currently. Apparently the 101 part of your name stands true for your common sense level. What are you smoking to say there there is not stress or bottleneck here! Maybe not in a metropolitan area, but in rural areas there are very real bottlenecks.
said by Tech Guy 101 :I currently pay 70 bucks a month for 20/3 service. For the same amount in other countries, you can get triple and quadruple the speed with unlimited service. Poor you, 70 buck for 20 megs. Whine whine whine. Move to one of the other countries where you will be living with 1,000 more people per square mile and will be paid like $1/day.. Oh, did I just answer the reason why they have those super fast speeds. Population density and cheap workforce.
said by Tech Guy 101 :This is just a ploy by the big cable and tv companies to try and restrict the internet out of fear that its going to canabalize the cable industry. No, wrong again. This a very real concern for ISP's who have based their pricing on what they anticipate the average customer will consume. If you max out your 20 meg connection 24x7, they WILL lose money. Once they start losing money on enough accounts (which is happening more and more with services like Netflix becoming mainstream) they will have to either raise rates, reduce speed, or charge based on usage. Pick your poison. | |
| | | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:5 Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Greedy Companies ... they WILL lose money. | |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Bizarro World [SARCASM]
Yes, I am one of those customers who wants my rates increased. And also please raise my taxes and government license fees too. In fact, please confiscate my 401K savings to pay off all the underfunded civil service employees union pensions. I really want to help them out.
[/SARCASM]
Sounds like this HP guy is drinking the same Kool-Aid as all the other people looking to line their pockets at the expense of the general populace.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | | | Re: Bizarro World In the United Corporate States, corporations know what is better for you than you. Please make sure you vote for A or B (where both are funded by the same corporations) and be quiet. | |
| |  ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN | "Bizarro rob bank so Bizarro can make right".
~Backwards Superman,
Planet Bizarro
--
»were.boldlygoingnowhere.org if we don't change out ways! | |
|
| | I LIKE the analogy All-you-can-eat vs à la carte? Well, for internet, I'd love to choose.
That's not what I have available in my neighborhood, tho. No choice. When there's actual competition for business based on ordinary, “free market” economics, then I, too, expect that the unlimited package goes away. But the resulting service packages might end up as $9/month plus $1 for each 20GB, or something not ridiculously unrelated to the cost of providing the service.
Competition does that. Government-sanctioned monopolies don't. You probably need about 5 hungry-for-business providers of service in a given area to be competitive. I doubt that exists for high-speed internet anywhere in the US.
Not that it wouldn't be a tremendous boost when carriers have to hustle for business the same way as your neighborhood coffee shop does. | |
| SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL | Want? Or will have forced upon me. | |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post |
| |
|
|
·
Incumbent Telephone Companies tried the same thing in 1997
1) First the teleco's were excited about selling all of those modem lines to the Dial-Up ISP's.