Is 'Consumption-Based Billing' Really Inevitable?Investors who love the idea would really like to think so... 10:56AM Wednesday Jun 03 2009 by Karl Bodetags: competition · business · bandwidth · Op/Ed · capsBecause he's an investor -- and the push toward metered billing is driven primarily by investors who want to see carriers monetize Internet video delivery and protect TV revenues -- Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett's been pushing hard for metered billing to anyone who'll listen. Moffett recently proclaimed that AT&T should ditch their $30 unlimited iPhone data plan and bill by the byte, and this week chimes in on the inevitability of metered billing to MarketWatch (via Stop The Cap): "Look, there's a real argument for some form of consumption-based billing, and it's going to happen," he said. "Time Warner got the pricing wrong, it got the P.R. wrong, but this is not some kind of stealth price increase. They've been clear -- they don't want to discourage the use of the [broadband] product, but they have be able to manage the increased use of bandwidth that goes with Web-based video." So, other than wanting to charge 2000% over cost for bandwidth, insulting the intelligence of their customers, mishandling the public relations, and imposing ultra-low caps that were ridiculous in the age of HD video -- Time Warner Cable's idea was sound? Again, metered billing is absolutely about raising prices on consumers, though it's also about protecting TV revenues from the inevitable assault from Internet video. As for needed metered billing to manage bandwidth, Time Warner Cable has yet to upgrade all markets with relatively inexpensive DOCSIS 3.0 technology. They've also yet to show any hard, raw data that supports -- in any way -- the idea that metered billing is necessary to manage bandwidth demand. Keep in mind that Moffett also thinks network upgrades are unnecessary, has declared the wireless industry is collapsing, and enjoys slamming Verizon's investment in fiber whenever possible. There's no real debate that metered billing would be great for investors and carriers, but the fact remains these new pricing models may not be good for consumers -- a contingent Moffett and other investors couldn't care less about. Remember, if this was really about simply handling capacity, carriers could simply target the heaviest users -- pushing those 0.1% of users to a business class tier, or, like Comcast, implement a 250GB cap. What companies like Time Warner Cable are proposing, and what Moffett is drooling over, is a system that takes aim at ordinary families, putting them on new pricing models where bandwidth is rationed. As HD Internet video delivery truly explodes over the next decade, Moffett's client portfolios soar as carriers directly monetize Internet video delivery down to the megabyte. That's great for them, but not so great for you. While carriers promise that consumption-based billing will result in lighter users paying less, those of you who've been playing along at home know that in the end creative ISP accounting will have you paying more -- not less. Related:- Time Warner Cable: Let's Not Talk About Net Neutrality
- Bogus Consumer Group To 'Educate' You On Metered Billing
- Looking For Hard Data To Justify Metered Billing
- As Verizon Goes, So Goes Metered Billing
- Time Warner Caps Go from Ugly To Invisible
- Cable: Let Us Experiment With Pricing Or The Internet Explodes
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- Wall Street Journal Tries, Fails To Cover Metered Billing Debate
|
page: 1 · 2  |
  kapil The Kapil
join:2000-04-26 Chicago, IL
1 edit | Nope They'll try, the greedy providers, to sustain their unrealistic revenue growth projections and to try and prop up their failing stock prices which will plummet once investors in companies like AT&T realize they have no next-gen deployment plan like Verizon and its FTTP. But it will fail.
Bandwidth has become a cheap commodity. There's more bandwidth available and fewer buyers willing to buy it. Supply vs. demand....the numbers don't favor the ISPs.
It's funny that they're claiming supply/demand thing to justify their greed....claiming that there's more demand due to bandwidth hungry apps....simply not true.
Try as you might TW, Comcast and AT&T, you will not succeed long-term in gouging consumers. -- »www.Digium.com | |
|  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Nope said by kapil :... Try as you might TW, Comcast and AT&T, you will not succeed long-term in gouging consumers. Unfortunately, they will unless congress does something to stop them.
With the lack of competition, there is nothing to moderate price increases because customers have no other choice in a lot of cases. I can only get broadband thru comcast; if they decide to implement low caps and throttle and all that other stuff, my choice is grin and bear it or have no broadband. | |
|  |  |  hottboiinnc ME
join:2003-10-15 Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Nope Congress does not have the right to butt their asses into these private businesses.
You are free to start up your own ISP and compete just like anyone else on this board. Instead of asking for more control you should be asking for money to build YOUR OWN ISP and give the people want they want. Unlimited 1gig by 1gig internet for $10 per month. | |
|  |  |  |  Selenia
join:2006-09-22 Pittsfield, MA
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Nope said by hottboiinnc :Congress does not have the right to butt their asses into these private businesses. You are free to start up your own ISP and compete just like anyone else on this board. Instead of asking for more control you should be asking for money to build YOUR OWN ISP and give the people want they want. Unlimited 1gig by 1gig internet for $10 per month. Wow! This troll is still pitching this idea? With your views, you must have billions of $$$ or are simply ignorant to the actual cost of the transit equipment. Notice I said equipment, not bandwidth. Are you also ignorant of the cost of bribing government officials to overturn laws that the cable and telcos bribed them for, so that they could have monopolies like they do now? I got a great job and I still don't have that kind of $$$, not to mention(in the case of telcos) infrastructure paid for by taxpayers.
So, what is your interest in protecting large companies that are out to screw and abuse their customers, instead of valuing them, which would be expected in a non-monopolistic business? Yeah, a company treats me like poo and I go elsewhere, in general, which is fine. In the case of ISPs, the monopoly prevents that in many areas.
So, become a billionaire, move out of your home, or just let companies rape you hard? Is that your view? It seems to be, going by all your posts. | |
|  |  |  |   sant9442
@sbcglobal.net
| said by hottboiinnc :You are free to start up your own ISP and compete just like anyone else on this board. You can't put up your own infrastructure. You are not free if you have to pay a fee to them to use their wires. | |
|  |   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| said by kapil :Try as you might TW, Comcast and AT&T, you will not succeed long-term in gouging consumers. Nope. They forget MS, Sony, Amazon, Google and Netflix among others are trying to make money off digital downloading and online video and caps hurt that. Do they think they can mess with those guys and get away with it? Doesn't Sony own A LOT of content? It would suck if they told all the cable companies they weren't allowed to show any of that content anymore now would it?
MS just announce 1080p movies and full game downloads for XBL. How are you going to get people to rent a 1080p movie when they have a 40 GB cap and $1 or more per GB overage. a 720p movie is about 6 GB so that makes a 1080p movie what 12-15 GB? XBOX 360 games run about 7-9 GB. How do you get people to buy games if they're going to pay an extra $8 for the game because of some cap?
Don't Google and Amazon own a lot of pipe? Did it ever occur to the cable guys at some point in the future it may be necessary to have access to that? Be funny if they were told NO. | |
|  |  |  iansltx
join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO | Re: Nope Sony likes the old way of doing things (cable video etc.). However Netflix et al might show some nice muscle. "Sorry, you can't use YouTube because it might go over your cap. Please switch internet providers." Heheheh. | |
|  |  |  |   jt7
@comcast.net | comcast has not said anything aboue charging people by usage. please read this carefully . it said tw could do what comcast is doing putting a really high cap on the service and if you go over they ask you to sign up for business services. | |
|  |  |   kapil The Kapil
join:2000-04-26 Chicago, IL
| Re: Nope That's what Comcast wants you think. They've hired some really shrewd PR people...and apparently the image makeover is working. But at its core, it's still the same old anti-consumer company it always was. -- »www.Digium.com | |
|  |  |  |   PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06 Merrimack, NH
·Comcast
| Re: Nope said by kapil :That's what Comcast wants you think. They've hired some really shrewd PR people...and apparently the image makeover is working. But at its core, it's still the same old anti-consumer company it always was. It's not about what you or I think, but what they are actually doing. People used to complain about the "secret cap" and wanted it spelled out. Under legal pressure, Comcast has spelled it out and apparently it affects very few users, even on this site. No overage charges and not a peep about usage based billing. -- Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
|  |  Kearnstd Elf Wizard Premium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ
| my understanding about the Comcast cap is the likelyhood of getting a Nastygram also depends on your Node, if its low usage suburban and you dont impact the other customers you are less likely to get one then say if you are on a high density node in downtown Philly. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|  |   baineschile 2600 Premium join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI | when you lease a car, you buy miles; and if you go over the alotted miles, you get charged per mile.
i dont see how thats any different, other than broadband has been all you can eat since its inception. | |
|  |  |   tosu23
@utoronto.ca
| Re: Nope said by baineschile :when you lease a car, you buy miles; and if you go over the alotted miles, you get charged per mile. i dont see how thats any different, other than broadband has been all you can eat since its inception. Except when I lease a car, I can put my whole family of 6 in the car and we all get use in those same miles.
Not 25 gigs cut up between 6 people... Could you imagine that being written into your lease? | |
|  |  |  |   baineschile 2600 Premium join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI | Re: Nope You or your whole family could drive that car and use its mileage, and it counts towards the total mileage. You are way off | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04 USA
| said by baineschile :when you lease a car, you buy miles; and if you go over the alotted miles, you get charged per mile. i dont see how thats any different, other than broadband has been all you can eat since its inception. I rent cars frequently. I haven't rented a car by the miles in ages. Like over a decade. It's now unlimited miles everywhere I rent. | |
|  |  |   WileEC mindtaker, macky cat, etc.
join:2002-02-07 Yonkers, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| said by baineschile :when you lease a car, you buy miles; and if you go over the alotted miles, you get charged per mile. i dont see how thats any different, other than broadband has been all you can eat since its inception. What a dumb analogy.
Car leases are based directly on the projected residual value for a given vehicle as it will be after a predetermined length of time and a specific maximum mileage amount as agreed upon ahead of time by all parties involved in the lease. Of course they charge you for mileage overages as additional mileage accumulation outside of the amount originally agreed upon would further reduce a vehicle's residual value and there must be compensation for that. Without a mileage limit and overage charges, an auto lease would be an impractical agreement.
There is no parallel to broadband. Not even close. | |
|  |  |  |   baineschile 2600 Premium join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI | Re: Nope The analogy is the exact same, just the details and dates are different. You buy a certain amount of a variable (bandwidth, miles) for a certain amount of time (1 month, 24 months), and if you go over you are charged per. | |
|  |  |   idosha
@verizon.net
| Leasing is retarded. So are caps and usage-billing. I say if your unhappy about what these companies are doing and they are the only choice then kick them out of your town so there's none. At that point a new company will move in. Anarchy is needed at some point ; ) | |
|  |  |  albundyhere
join:2000-10-26 New York, NY
| said by baineschile :when you lease a car, you buy miles; and if you go over the alotted miles, you get charged per mile. i dont see how thats any different, other than broadband has been all you can eat since its inception. your statement is dangerously misleading. With a car, you also have the option to buy it, not just lease it. I dont have the option of buying my internets. | |
|  |  babystars_13
join:2009-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN | Verizon is a joke now I will never use them again for ANYTHING including Wireless. | |
|  expert007
join:2006-01-10 Buffalo, NY
| Spot On... "Remember, if this was really about simply handling capacity, carriers could simply target the heaviest users -- pushing those 0.1% of users to a business class tier, or, like Comcast, implement a 250GB cap"
Exactly. I *know* that my usage has the potential to be more than anyone else's, and thus I'm alright with the understanding that I'm going to pay more.
(Wired & Wireless) | |
|  |  sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24 Cleveland, OH
| Re: Spot On... You shouldn't be. In other countries with more advanced networks, there are no caps and connections are much faster. Time Warner cable made $4 billion in profit last year, but spent only $37 on infrastructure investment. There is literally no argument whatsoever for caps or metered billing of any form. You shouldn't have to pay more just because you're using advanced services that eventually everyone will begin to use.
And seriously, how do caps manage congestion during peak hours of usage? There isn't a single argument that explains how caps actually decrease internet usage. | |
|  |  |   baineschile 2600 Premium join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI | Re: Spot On... When can we get unlimited water, electricity and gas?
Sign me up. | |
|  |  |  |   major marco Res Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA clubs:
| Re: Spot On... said by baineschile :When can we get unlimited water, electricity and gas? Sign me up. As soon as those items aren't referred to as utilities and aren't regulated anymore. Then water, sewage, gas, & electricity providers can have their cake and eat it too just like the ISPs. -- The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
|  |  |  |  iansltx
join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO | Heard of DWDM? That solves the bandwidth problem at the backbone level. DOCSIS 3 or FTTP solves it at the home level. Both are one-time improvements. I'm sure TWC pays PENNIES per GB of data to Level3, if they don't peer with those folks... | |
|  |  |  |  |  yt Premium join:2008-06-03
| Re: Spot On... said by iansltx :Heard of DWDM? That solves the bandwidth problem at the backbone level. DOCSIS 3 or FTTP solves it at the home level. Both are one-time improvements. I'm sure TWC pays PENNIES per GB of data to Level3, if they don't peer with those folks... DWDM does not solve bandwith problems. It allows for growth and nothing is a one-time improvement. Network capacity is constantly added. New DWDM waves, node splits, router cards, etc, etc.
As far as pennies / GB you are highly missinformed. Depending on the network and how national it is, wholesale transit is less than $10/Mb (not Gb), but it also requires a national backbone to get that. Peering also requires national infrastructure growth and if you understand hot-potato routing you will also know that the broadband ISP carrys the traffic the longest in a peering relationship (even more cost). On top of that many of the Tier1s put in peering clauses that are unrealistic with little business sense, etc, etc,
While your posting is emotional (vs fact based), it is fairly inaccurate. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  iansltx
join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: Spot On... Where are you getting your numbers from?
In any major city I can get 100 Mbit/s at less than $10 per megabit. Each megabit translates into a maximum of about 300GB of traffic each way. Thus, pennies per GB. Granted, I can't get that out here in the sticks, but low five figures for a wireless backhaul system should get me around $15 per Mbit or less, including tower space rental. That's probably closer to the middle of nowhere than average. In a big city, you can get $10 per Mbit or less outright.
Or, if you're buying multiple gigabits of transit, the number is closer to $5. Again, take the number and divide by 300 (taking into account that most web traffic is downloading and you're not going to use peak capacity at all times) and you get pennies per GB. My argument still stands,
As for peering, I know that it isn't always easy. But if you have something the potential peer wants then you'll be able to work something out. If you're peering with a smaller entity, the agreemnt is mutually advantageous. Europe's internet infrastructure relies heavily on peering for this purpose, hence providers like OVH who won't sell to the US because they pay MUCH more for transit than for peering.
For DWDM waves, I know they're not a fixed cost, as in "this provides unlimited capacity". But 10 Gbit of capacity is a TON; some national backbones (Sprint and XO, last I checked) top out at that. From what I've read, turning up a point to point 10GE link is a few bucks per megabit if you own the fiber, a buck or two per megabit per month if you don't.
Let me reiterate: 1. If you're in a big city you can get bandwidth at $10 per Mbit easily, lower if you get a higher commit. On inbound bandwidth I've actually gotten a quote of $1 per Mbit or below in Denver. 2. Peering is cheaper than transit, otherwise people wouldn't do it. You can't always do peering, but it's still cheaper when you can do it. 3. DWDM waves (10Gbit of capacity) are themselves a one-time cost for hardware. The extra marginal cost is low. Also, 10 Gbit can hold a LOT of data. 4. Point to point nationwide links at the 10GE level are cheap, a few bucks per Mbit at most. That's good for getting from point A to point B, where point B is peering with someone like Google.
Bottom line: bandwidth congestion is at the middle or last mile. If you're in a larger city, there is no middle mile. Thus in San Antonio I could get Level3 and Cogent each for under $10 per Mbit, and I'd have a very nice network for subscribers (look it up on FixedOrbit). Then all I need to do is backhaul that where needed (wired or wireless; wired has more capacity but wireless is quicker and cheaper to set up), then distribute it to customers.
So unless you have hard numbers, please reconsider before you post.
As a side note, I talked with a Level3 guy recently and he wouldn't say whether Comcast peers with L3 or not. If they do peer, CC has really cheap bandwidth to most of the internet. If the don't, they probably still have a nice deal. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  yt Premium join:2008-06-03
| Re: Spot On... said by iansltx :Where are you getting your numbers from? Directly. I build carrier networks for a living and also sell this stuff. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  yt Premium join:2008-06-03
4 edits | Re: Spot On... I don't dispute that the last mile of any network is the most expensive. My point was networks are constantly added to and upgraded at a cost. DOCSIS 3 and FTTP provide a structure for future traffic growth, but as usage increases it requires $$ to add more channels or upgrade ONTs to serve fewer customers last mile uplink.
As the usage / subscriber increases there is a ripple effect of upgrading the access routers, metro core rings, backbone cores, peering and transit exchange points, etc. Some data shows Internet traffic levels of the past have grown cores at about 40-50% / year. That is a fair amount of infrastructure. Add to that fork-lift upgrades when routers max out, DWDM fills up and new fiber lighting in metros and backbones are required. Large networks build about a quarter or 1/2 year ahead of demand. No one has the financial luxury of building huge amounts of excess capacity. Some financially strapped carriers build just in time and run their networks over 100% under failure conditions.
40-50% broadband growth has been a manageable number for most broadband network suppliers. The traffic patterns show typically web, mp3, YouTube, Hulu, etc. The jury is still out on what happens in the future when TVs have WiFi and Internet set tops built into them. Add to that the lost revenue of traditional TV. If growth goes over the current path, it changes the cost structure and business model. I don't think this is an emotional "greed" issue. It is a logical business issue that we all need to understand.
Now to address transit prices. The really low transit prices you hear quoted typically come from an ISP that has a spot market on capacity or an imbalance of traffic. Example: ISP X may be heavy on their outbound traffic and able to sell a fixed amount of inbound traffic at a low rate to balance their network. This is not a real cost based price point and is more of a spot market.
The rediculiously cheap prices you hear come from the "backplane transit suppliers" These are ISPs that have a peering connections with a broadband ISPs in various exchange facilities. They in turn undercut transit prices to sell to content suppliers to get to that broadband ISP. The backplane transit suppliers costs are a router interface and 30 meters of fiber. The content supplier now has a major reduction of cost and can double or triple their output of traffic with the same cost. The broadband network then has to carry this growth (with zero incremental revenue) potentially 1000 miles at a much larger end to end cost. This is not a reality price and those ISPs are exploiting peering relationships.
When you calculate the full end to end cost of sustainable Internet traffic growth and include infrastructure, facilities routers, dwdm, more routers, leased peering facilities, etc, etc, the costs is well above $5 / Mb.
That said, I want to address another thing I have read here on BBR. While most CDN company's talk about GB served and your average user thinks about how much they have downloaded, networks are not built that way. Networks are built in Gbps not GB consumed / month. Unfortunately this is very confusing to the consumer, so most broadband providers have used GB/month as a metric. As a network engineer, I cringe every time I hear GBs cost pennies.
Lastly, my point is most of the post on BBR are emotional fear mongering of the future. I think part of this is stirred up by well orchestrated PR camps on both sides of the issue. The reality is bandwidth is not unlimited, bits have costs and it is not as cheap end to end from what you are hearing. | |
|  |  |  |  IanR
join:2001-03-22 Madison, NJ
| A) Water, electricity and gas need the companies providing those products down their channel to BUY the product for onalse to the consumer. B) Broadband does NOT require the channel to BUY anything. Instead the channel has to make the long term investment in hardware and then maintain the channel.
Thus the cost basis of (B) is very different from (A). Both require a chcneel and maintenance, but (A) also require ongoing purchases of the product while (A) des not.
Most bradband providers are asking customers to pay around $50.00 p.m ($600 pa) That's a very very nice lump of change to pay off the hardware amortization costs and maintenance. And the cost of equipment keeps falling.
Thus there is no reason at all why broadband ISPs should not run a nicely profitable business providing all-the-data-you can-consume to consumers.
This would not cover business services. | |
|  |  |  |  |  cornelius785
join:2006-10-26 Worcester, MA
| Re: Spot On... i was gonna say that power, gas, oil, water, and similar are not similar to internet access. one category is bound the physical substances (so much oil/gas/water, you need to constantly process all of them), while the other is only bound how good your infrastructure is. | |
|  |  |  |   Tosu23
@utoronto.ca
| said by baineschile :When can we get unlimited water, electricity and gas? Sign me up. You never rented before? Many times everything you brought up is included and unlimited... | |
|  |  |  |  albundyhere
join:2000-10-26 New York, NY
| said by baineschile :When can we get unlimited water, electricity and gas? Sign me up. There are lots of rental apartments that provide this and include it in yoru rent. whats your point? | |
|  |  |  |  |  yt Premium join:2008-06-03
| Re: Spot On... said by albundyhere :said by baineschile :When can we get unlimited water, electricity and gas? Sign me up. There are lots of rental apartments that provide this and include it in yoru rent. whats your point? And the utility costs of the entire apartment is equally divided with all renters.
Now how would you like your rent bill to go up because one of your fellow renters started a laundry business in their home, another had racks of power hungry computers and AC sucking heavy wattage and a third connected their water next door to the car wash in exchange for a free car wash.
Should the landlord equally increase the charges for the many to pay for the few? Should the renter be kicked out or moved to commercial property? Or should the very few be charged for what they use? | |
|  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA | Where did you grab $37 for infrastructure investment? I see $146M for direct high-speed data costs. I also see a CAPEX of $3.5B for continuing operations....granted that doesn't only include HSD costs. | |
|  |  |  expert007
join:2006-01-10 Buffalo, NY
| "There is literally no argument whatsoever for caps or metered billing of any form"
There is indeed a very good argument, and its called capitalism. Of course, I don't want to pay anything for anything, but I recognize that they are a supplier of a service and I am the demand. If I want more of what they provide than someone else, I should pay more for it, regardless of the incremental cost to them. I fully expect what are essentially volume discounts, and I don't expect to be raped either. | |
|  |  |  |  backness
join:2005-07-08 K2P OW2
| Re: Spot On... Congratulations you missed the point!
What value do comcast et al. add to the product at this point?
We have: Content creator who can deal directly with Content User.
Creator> Consumer.
Why again should have any reason to be in the middle of this arangement again? Basically levying a tax on the new digital world.
The last mile you say? You mean the one they neglect and spend absolutely no money on?
So let me get this capitalism stuff straight, you expect a company that adds no value to deliver a product that they had no involvement or capital outlay on, to charge a delivery tax on a per MB basis over a system that they are willingly and purposefully neglecting? | |
|  |  |  |  Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26 Spring Valley, CA
| said by expert007 :"There is literally no argument whatsoever for caps or metered billing of any form" There is indeed a very good argument, and its called capitalism. Of course, I don't want to pay anything for anything, but I recognize that they are a supplier of a service and I am the demand. If I want more of what they provide than someone else, I should pay more for it, regardless of the incremental cost to them. I fully expect what are essentially volume discounts, and I don't expect to be raped either. If you understood consumer side capitalism or free market ideals you would know that even at a pay-to-play level, you should expect the absolute lowest price for the absolute best service. Considering that those might be a little far fetched to attain, it still isn't unreasonable to expect, as a consumer, that you should want the lowest price possible and not worry about how the provider provides it to you. | |
|  |  |  |  |  expert007
join:2006-01-10 Buffalo, NY
| Re: Spot On... I'm not going to claim that anyone is providing anywhere near to level of service/support/etc. that they should, I think we can all agree on that.
Absolute lowest price for the absolute best service? Ok, let me know when you can walk into an Audi dealership and walk out with an A6 that you paid $15000 for.
You can drop the 'consumer side capitalism and free market ideals" stuff. Lets keep this in the real world. It's glaringly obvious that you haven't run a (successful) business. I'd love to see your reaction when a customer comes to you and insists that you add no value to the supply chain, and thus, he should be able to take as many of your widgets/bandwidth as he can without regard to the cost. | |
|  |  |  |  sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24 Cleveland, OH
| No you don't understand what I'm saying. Caps DO NOT decrease usage of the internet at peak hours, when congestion could even become an issue for people. How does it hurt TWC or other cable companies' networks if a heavy downloader uses the network between 12 am and 7 am, when no one else is even on?
Caps are ridiculous farces, trotted out by the telcos and cable companies as pathetic disguises of their true motives: to eliminate all competition in the area of internet services. Thus caps are anti-competitive and should be deemed illegal. | |
|  |  |   PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06 Merrimack, NH
·Comcast
| said by sonicmerlin :And seriously, how do caps manage congestion during peak hours of usage? There isn't a single argument that explains how caps actually decrease internet usage. I noticed nobody answered your question directly. The answer really depends on which company is providing the service. Some companies charge overage fees. The goal and aims of that are twofold. First, it can discourage what the provider deems excess internet usage. Second, the overage fees collected will help defray the costs of network infrastructure improvements needed to respond to higher demand.
Other companies set a high cap that affects only users whose consumption contributes towards degradation of service over a particular area. Those whose usage both exceeds the cap AND contributes towards degraded service for the company's other customers is first warned, then booted from the network. Voila! Decreased internet usage! -- Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
|  b10010011 Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07 Bellingham, WA | Too late, the cat has long since left the bag... Right now Comcast is the best bang for the buck I can get.
But I would not hesitate to drop their service like a steaming turd if that changes | |
|   S_engineer
join:2007-05-16 Chicago, IL
·Comcast
1 edit | Well.. Some one needs to listen to the other types of investors. The ones that have pensions, 401k's, and annuities. We are basically half of the nation. And i'm sure I could speak for 90% of them when I say NO to metered billing. The American consumer is being nickeled and dimed to death. With the possibility of universal healthcare on the horizon coupled with the social security/medicare debt, we are truly on the verge of bankruptcy. Taking this route would ensure that people would continue to live beyond their means, and plunge the people that actually pay taxes further into debt. This Squid Moffet needs a reality check. Hes the type that barks about to many taxes but promotes ideas that will all but guarantee them. What a Splib! -- BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
|  |  See 13 replies to this post | |
  tony_wan_kenobe
@myatc.net
| Consumption Based Billing As long as we have competition in a free market, competitors will find ways to attract consumers. If they want to increase revenues, they have to increase their market share. As soon as one competitor starts losing their share, they will resort to more competitive tactics, such as fixed price unlimited bandwidth.
People like AT&T and Verizon should know this. When they had early cell phone service, it was all by-the-minute charges. Period. Competition drove them to blocks of air time, and finally unlimited local calling and now unlimited long distance calling. That's what competition does.
Natural competition will prevent unit pricing schemes, whether it is minutes of airtime, or bits of data. But that is all predicated on natural competition.
The bigger threat is Congress. There is a perfect storm brewing in Washington where the Congress is faced with a reluctance to reduce spending, and the resulting drive to increase revenue (read that as taxes). Combine that with their recently demonstrated willingness to take over and regulate private industry, and the scenario is set for Congress to generate ever more revenue from the communications industry. It would be very plausible for them to institute a "per unit" communications tax that would form the basis of metered bandwidth. From there, the ISPs would find a way to add "special" fees based on the requirement to meter and collect taxes.
That's the bigger threat. | |
|  |  |  |  |  k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19 Homer Glen, IL
| Re: Consumption Based Billing said by KrK :said by tony_wan_kenobe :
As long as we have competition in a free market, There you go. You could of stopped there. Free market? Ha,. your funny. Now, what was that "industry standard" for text messaging and caps? | |
|  |  |  |   tony_wan_kenobe
@myatc.net
| In a rather practical way, you are correct in questioning just how free free markets are. At any given moment in time, most of us live in communities that limit our choice to a single provider. That said, I suggest we need to consider the "free market" beyond our local experience and in the longer term.
Innovation will drive competitive markets as long as there are entrepreneurs willing to take risks, and as long as risk takers are able to get rewards ($$) commensurate with those risks. In this case, the innovation is technology driven.
You are correct in noting that many communities appear to have a single choice for high speed connectivity. Most communications nets were (and still are) based on copper. AT&T used to be all any of us had. They owned the infrastructure. Competitors were willing to bring innovation, but communities didnt want replication of phone lines for each potential competitor. Constantly digging up roads and erecting phone poles was out of the question. That concern still lies at the core of the snapshot picture of local competition.
It wasnt that long ago, that AT&T had a monopoly on our communications. We even had to lease our phones from them. Then came MCI and Sprint. Things got better through competition. We then got cable TV via coax, and that eventually enabled data feeds and digital phones. And the phone guys like AT&T and Sprint are fighting back by adding entertainment to their systems. Again, service and technology improved and price/performance was an effective lure for market share.
In a day-to-day view, your point is valid. If you only have a choice of one, you have no choice at all. For most people, all of our communications comes in through that single entry cable dictated by our community. Not a very "free" market.
There is competition to service the community, but generally the winner is determined by how much money the provider is willing to give to the community for the privilege of taking our money. Fiber is coming slowly (such as FIOS), but it will still need community approval to dig.
To overcome this, entrepreneurs have gone wireless. There are satellite providers, microwave providers, RF and cell providers. Some of these will die off, but they will be replaced with even newer concepts. No digging and take-it-with-you coverage (such as Clearwire).
There are a couple of points here.
First, if we did not have an openly competitive market place, we would all be using dial up from AT&T. They had been happy with their business model and saw little need to improve, except if change would drive down their cost of operations and increase their margins. Technology and service improve because someone makes it happen. Enterprising innovators have a better idea and bring it to market. You may not be able to access it immediately (community limitations and such), but improvements pull up the market overall. Over time, even the single provider communities experience improvements in service.
As evidence of the success of competitive forces at work, we can look at the price/performance ratios of computing and networking. Home PCs today can outperform a CRAY of twenty years ago, while costing less than 1% of what that CRAY cost. NO other industry shows such dramatic improvements in cost and performance. None. Free and open competitive markets enable that. But once you buy a new PC, it is obsolete before you get it out of the box. Most people lock themselves into that technology for several years. Yet, competitive forces around them continue to advance the market. Competitive free market forces do exist and we all benefit from them. But we need to view them in the longer term, not just what is happening in our house, today.
The second point is that in this competitive environment, the market share leaders will consider schemes to earn money for themselves and their investors. Among those schemes will be consumption based pricing. But, innovators and entrepreneurs will go after market share by offering a better deal. Consumers benefit.
But I stand with my view in the original post that I remain skeptical that Congress will leave this alone. Years ago, they wanted to protect consumers from greedy cable providers. They regulated the industry and now my TV service costs 400% more. Congress already added a fee into our internet bills to ensure all citizens got access to the Information Superhighway. A small start, but considering their ravenous appetite for tax revenues, I can easily see Congress imposing a connectivity tax, with progressive taxes based on use (bandwidth).
At that point, the providers will need to expand their tax collection services to meet Federal obligations. That will cause them to install metering systems and add staff to collect those taxes, etc. That will result in users paying both the usage tax, as well as special service fees to the providers.
Left in a competitive market, no provider would be able to sustain business by limiting bandwidth. However, if the government charges taxes based on consumption, that takes unlimited bandwidth off the table as a competitive advantage. Just as they did with cable TV, we can expect the cost of our internet service go up, and choices go down.
If we see metered internet services, it will not be the doing of competing companies, but rather a result of legislation. | |
|   Bit Premium join:2009-02-19 00000 1 edit | Is my cancellation of a $50/mo metered service inevitable? Absolutely. The day Cox actually enforces their caps on me is the day I cancel. -- POKE 65495,1 | |
|  |  See 7 replies to this post | |
 DoubleK Doublek
join:2003-03-04 Beloit, WI clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
·Charter Pipeline
| Perspective It is how we perceive broadband. Is it a necessity or a commodity open to our often times flawed capitalistic approach. If you owned stock or had retirement investments connected to a national broadband provider you would DEMAND to see growth and hope the company could realize as much profit as possible.
Therein lies the problem. Broadband is not a commodity and if OUR government is going to pump BILLIONS of OUR tax dollars into incentives to entice these companies as opposed to supporting municipal broadband efforts all will be lost with the momentum this administration has been able to gain. I find it incredible that internet alone costs roughly 25% - 50% of my monthly electrical and natural gas consumption for a family of 4. | |
|  |   amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22 Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Perspective said by DoubleK :It is how we perceive broadband. Is it a necessity or a commodity open to our often times flawed capitalistic approach. I think that's the correct position. Broadband has been subsidized by taxpayer dollars. And, service providers benefit from monopolistic municipal franchise agreements. And, they use public right of ways (easements) instead of negotiating with each property owner as would be required in a truly "free" market.
Market-based economies and capitalism are a matter of degrees, not absolutes.
Mark | |
|  axiomatic
join:2006-08-23 Tomball, TX | Choice Yeah, "choice" will win the day in areas that have choice.
I would drop a cable provider in an instant if they price themselves out of what most of us network engineers know to be a fair price.
You have been warned cable co's. | |
|  |  |  |  |  axiomatic
join:2006-08-23 Tomball, TX
| Re: Choice I agree with you and sincerely hope that if metered billing occurs in a market where there is a monopoly, I would think that the local city government would squash the monopoly and open up avenues of competition.
If this does not occur then I would think it would be relatively easy to start a lawsuit and elevate it to "class action" status rather rapidly. | |
|  mlundin
join:2001-03-27 Lawrence, KS
·Sunflower Broadband
·Comcast
| Never going to happen. Data isn't a commodity like natural gas, electricity, or water, so there's not inherent reason to implement metered billing other than "that they can", and that won't happen because there will always be some competitor who will say: "well, if you buy OUR service you get a flat rate." Sorry to disappoint. | |
|  |  See 6 replies to this post | |
 ernieJohnstn
join:2005-02-27 Lilburn, GA
| Competition What is needed is a third competitor for whom capacity is not a limited resource, one that combines all our communications over an integrated Fixed and Wireless network. I'm working on it.
A reasonable cap is 5% of bandwidth per month, which would be much more than almost all users could consume. Especially if the network delivers 100 or 1000 MBps. | |
|  |  me1212
join:2008-11-20 Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Competition I agree competition is what we NEED. | |
|  |  sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24 Cleveland, OH
| There are no reasonable caps. Caps DO NOT manage network congestion, which occur during peak hours of usage.
Caps are anti-competitive, and based on nothing but PR and deceit.
There is no reason to believe these extremely profitable companies can't spend more money on infrastructure investment. | |
|  |  |  me1212
join:2008-11-20 Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Competition True. | |
|  |  |   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| said by sonicmerlin :There are no reasonable caps. Caps DO NOT manage network congestion, which occur during peak hours of usage. Well caps based on peak hours would actually make more sense and be more believable. And throttling speed down to people going over the caps make more sense that charging overages. Throttling IMMEDIATLEY stops the problem. Overages don't kick in until someone gets a bill WEEKS later after they went over and "congested" the network. An 8 GB daily cap between 2 PM -10 PM and unlimited useage between 10:01 PM and 1:59 PM makes more sense if network congestion is really an issue. | |
|  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| said by ernieJohnstn :What is needed is a third competitor for whom capacity is not a limited resource, one that combines all our communications over an integrated Fixed and Wireless network. I'm working on it. .. in the words of Hillary Clinton.. "The skies will open up, the sun will shine, the birds will sing..."
That was said about Obama during the campaign trail who sung the song of what he's trying to push now, only he is finally realizing that while it sounded good on the trail, when you're in office and in the real world, it SOUNDS good, but it's not possible.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a non-limited resource for internet.. not unless you can change the universe.
100 MBps may be great now.. but in a year from that point, it's already out dated. | |
|   oVrKil
@bankone.com
| They've made it very clear "They've been clear -- they don't want to discourage the use of the [broadband] product, but they have be able to manage the increased use of bandwidth that goes with Web-based video."
Oh I'm afraid they made it very clear, they DO want to discourage video use over the internet as stated in the last part of the article
"As HD Internet video delivery truly explodes over the next decade, Moffett's client portfolio's soar as carriers directly monetize Internet video delivery down to the megabyte."
Meaning that the following services being bunked (as stated here »gigaom.com/2009/05/29/the-stream···t-yet/): XBOX/Netflix XBOX360 PS3 TiVo Roku VUDU Apple TV Blockbuster Mediapoint Player Broadband-enabled TVs Broadband-enabled Blu-ray Players and any computer connected to the internet has the capability to view HD media from a variety of TV shows websites (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc...)
Why be dumb pipe when you can financially rape your customers for viewing the same media on your medium from a different source. So much for competition. So much for net neutrality. So much for the customer coming first. Long live corp greed | |
|  |   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| Re: They've made it very clear said by oVrKil :
"As HD Internet video delivery truly explodes over the next decade, Moffett's client portfolio's soar as carriers directly monetize Internet video delivery down to the megabyte." Excpet most peole will be like me. I will NEVER go over my cap. I simply will use LESS. So there is no overage fee to collect on. And sorry the cable companies aren't saving that much money by me using less bandwidth.
Not tomention in areas where there are at least 2 ISPs competing on caps is the next big thing. Trying to get customers base on speed is to the point of useless now. company A has 30 Mbps, company B has 50 Mbps, who cares that's the same thing for intents and purposes. Everyone knows that the difference is minimal. If company A has a 500 GB cap( or no cap ) and company B has 100 GB cap, guess what I'm going with A. | |
|  |  sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24 Cleveland, OH
| Seriously I feel miserable about the situation. Internet connections should be viewed the same way we view computer technology, always expecting advances in tech that produce increasingly powerful computers for the same price. Increasingly faster broadband happens in other countries with well-managed industries, so why is the US government so anti-consumer?
Moreover, why does it take until *February* of *next year* for the FCC to formulate their broadband plans? Were they to survey the opinions of any sane network engineer and chief of network management at any ISP, they would very quickly realize how badly competition is needed. Instead they need 9 months to do what any reasonable person could explain to them in a day. | |
|  |  |  me1212
join:2008-11-20 Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: They've made it very clear The Government(both sides, for the most part) are getting too much money from ISPs to care about you. Aka the ISPs are bribing the Gov to look the other way. | |
|  |  |   badtrip East Bay Premium join:2004-03-20 Albany, CA
·Unwired Ltd
·Comcast
| Re: Shoot him, please. said by KrK :Seriously, a classic example of why a greedy few destroy the economy and well-being of millions of others. I believe you are describing "American capitalism" in general. | |
|   baineschile 2600 Premium join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI
·Comcast
·magicjack.com
·Verizon Wireless B..
1 edit | Consumption Based...support? There is a difference between consumption based, and CAPS. I dont agree in per-byte billing, but I do support any companies right to manage their network as they see fit; and if a person is downloading an obscene amount, I feel they have the right to boot them, or strangle their connection.
So many things are bill "per use" that we use. Water, electricity, gas; why dont we pursue a unlimited plan for these?
Obviously, as consumers, we want as much product as we can get with spending as little money. It seems though, that cable, and now fiber are considering caps, it seems inevitable.
There are very few areas now that have just 1 broadband provider; and very soon, with 4G deployment, there will be 3+ in most areas. If the industry decides to go a certain way, as long as its reasonable to the consumer, i see no problem with it.
I would support that they re-evaluate the caps each year. | |
|  |  cornelius785
join:2006-10-26 Worcester, MA | Re: Consumption Based...support? read responses on your post of comparing: water, electricity, gas to broadband's unlimit nature. you can't compare them.
also, got a link on caps for fiber connections? cause i'm smelling some BS in that point. | |
|  |  sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24 Cleveland, OH
| Why do you repeatedly ignore everyone's replies to your own posts? Do you realize how irritating you are, and how foolish you end up appearing?
Many people have pointed out that the examples you use are terrible for making analogies to the internet with. Yet you spout the same garbage over and over. It's people like you that allowed an idiot like Bush to be elected to 2 terms of presidency. | |
|  |  Zag3
join:2004-02-17 San Antonio, TX
| said by baineschile :... So many things are bill "per use" that we use. Water, electricity, gas; why dont we pursue a unlimited plan for these? ... Because those are finite resources, they run out. Water, electricity, gas are commodities that once used, they are gone for ever. What ever water, electricity and gas each one of us uses, no one else on earth can use it because once it is used, it is gone. Bandwidth is not finite, you can't use it up. | |
|  |  |   NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
1 edit | Re: TWC doesn't owe hard data to anyone If you claim that something is necessary but don't show actual proof that it is needed, what conclusion are people suppose to draw? Believe them at their word?
I don't believe a used car salesmen when he tells me a car runs great until I get proof by either taking it to a trusted mechanic and taking it out for a test drive.
Why should TWC be exempt from proving what they claim? If there really is compelling data to show that bill by the bit is required, then they should be eager to show it. -- "This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
|  |   n2jtx
join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY | At least... ... they did not post Craig Moffett's grinning face on this story. The guy reminds me too much of the character's in "Wall Street" and "Boiler Room". -- I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|   NetAdmin CCNA
join:2008-05-22
1 edit | Just raise the rates instead Maybe, instead of instituting pay per bit schemes, it is time to consider raising the rates charged to consumers. Speeds go up over time, yet prices have trended down? That's seems to defy logic because as last mile bandwidth utilization increases, scarcity increases which should logically force the price up.
The providers did this to themselves though. In the race to be the lowest priced provider in order to steal customers away from competitors, the providers have priced themselves into a corner. They don't have the cash flow to support the constantly growing demands on their networks while simultaneously creating a situation where they can't raise their rates for fear of loosing customers and further straining their cash flow.
If bill by the bit becomes a reality, it wasn't the fault of the consumer... It was short sighted management. -- "This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
|  |  See 7 replies to this post | |
 BarneyBadAss Badasses Fight For Freedom Premium join:2004-05-07 00001
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | It's really a way... For the respective Government(s) to tax the stew out of those that use the internet for anything.
Let me see now;
• The USPS (that's the United States Postal System) are loosing $$$ on snail-mail. We send vast quantities of virtual / digital letters / notes / greeting cards and the like that would in the past have charged for these pieces of paper / packages to be sent.
• UPS / FEDEX / DHL are loosing $$$ for similar reasons as the USPS.
• Federal; State Governments and Local Governments, are loosing revenue because folks: - that would have otherwise gone to a store to buy a product can now just order it online. - that would have driven to work (sometimes 100 miles each way) now telecommute.
So while many think it's about the revenue the ISP's can reap by charging by the byte; there are other costs that aren't presented; discussed nor calculated within the "by-the-byte" revenue streams.
Nutz; this part of the post didn't get in the first time so let me amend it.
As it is, there are several scenarios with SMS text messaging to things like cell phones where each msg costs like 0.10 / msg. so the companies are just wanting to continue modeling on that; and the Government(s) want their share too!!!!
The cost / byte is already in effect for some kinds of things! | |
|  |   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| Re: It's really a way... said by BarneyBadAss : UPS / FEDEX / DHL are loosing $$$ for similar reasons as the USPS. This is where I disagree. I've nevered ordered from catalogs or of TV much but in the last few years I've ordered online quite a bit from places like Amazon, best Buy etc. Well those items are typically sent to my house via UPS/Fed EX. That's extra business they never would have had before. And millions of people are just like me. | |
|  |  |  BarneyBadAss Badasses Fight For Freedom Premium join:2004-05-07 00001
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: It's really a way... said by BF69 :said by BarneyBadAss : UPS / FEDEX / DHL are loosing $$$ for similar reasons as the USPS. This is where I disagree. I've nevered ordered from catalogs or of TV much but in the last few years I've ordered online quite a bit from places like Amazon, best Buy etc. Well those items are typically sent to my house via UPS/Fed EX. That's extra business they never would have had before. And millions of people are just like me. Actually, I was refereing more to the aspect of legal sized letters that shouldn't be folded. A lot of those kinds of files are now able to be sent electronically, printed locally, and either faxed or scanned. Either way, the data can be sent back digitally. -- ---Barney | |
|  brad152
join:2006-07-27 Columbus, OH
·Insight Communicat..
| TWC is horrible for this! Honestly, this is just a load of BS.. i am glad i cannot get Time Warner Cable anymore, they are just a horrible company and need to crash and burn.
My bill was never right, all they did was overcharge for my cable and road runner not working half of the time, and now they're just trying to get more money out of people for their pathetic excuse of a network.
I have Insight now, and pay $50 per month for their RR Turbo service, i am suppose to get 15Mbps, but i usually hit around 30-32Mbps.. My company still seems to be making money off of this scheme, and i only have them for Internet and DirecTV for my video services. | |
|   woody7 Premium join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| hmmmm...... I maybe naive but.....As I understand it, the main reason for stock was to get revenue to grow your business, and as a by product your business increase in value or you paid dividends to the shareholders. Now, investments in infrastructure or upgrades aren't done, because it will affect the bottom line for the investor.this is why our country is so fucked up! Businesses only grow because of consumers, not because of investors. It stands to reason that you take care of the consumers, and the business will take care of it's self. What we have is the telecoms that make billions off the consumer, but don't want to spend on the infrastructure to take care of their consumers, is that a bout correct? Peace -- BlooMe | |
|  |   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| Re: hmmmm...... said by woody7 :I maybe naive but.....As I understand it, the main reason for stock was to get revenue to grow your business, and as a by product your business increase in value or you paid dividends to the shareholders. Yeah that's what stocks are SUPPOSED to be about. People used to stay in for the long term. now peole want a quick buck and they don't care if their investment actually goes to helping the company grow as long as the stock goes up and they can sell out as quickly as possible for a nice profit. To me stocks are fake now. No such thing as real stock. | |
|  |  BarneyBadAss Badasses Fight For Freedom Premium join:2004-05-07 00001
·Verizon FIOS
| said by woody7 :I maybe naive but.....As I understand it, the main reason for stock was .... Yo, Woody,
Your all messed up dude...
There are numerous kinds of stock, there's Beef, vegetable, fish, chicken, turkey, pork and I'm sure several others!
Get it correct dude!  -- ---Barney | |
|  | |  |
|
|