Looking For Hard Data To Justify Metered Billing And journalists are repeatedly not finding any.... Tuesday Apr 21 2009 10:19 EDT As you may have noticed, carriers would like you to believe that metered billing is absolutely necessary because flat-rate billing is "not viable" in the face of heavy use (aka piracy, videos) -- even as hardware and bandwidth prices fall and revenues soar. As we've noted, they offer no hard data to support this conclusion, and the data that does exist (like 10-K forms) suggest a market where large carriers see record profits that usually far outweigh infrastructure investment. Saul Hansell of the New York Times has been looking for hard data that justifies charging $1-$2 per gigabyte, but hasn't been having much luck. He's spoken to a number of industry insiders, and posted another interesting read over at the NY Times Bits blog. After crunching the numbers with carriers and analysts, Hansell concludes that there's "no evidence that the pace of spending to expand network capacity has increased at all." From his report: quote: A medium-sized Internet provider might pay about $10,000 per month for a one gigabit per second connection to the Internet. If the system didn’t own its own network in the metropolitan area, it may need to spend another $2,000 to $15,000 per month for a connection between a local system and the central office of whatever company was providing their Internet bandwidth. Assuming that bandwidth is divided among nodes of 500 homes sharing 38 Mbps, that means the cost of bandwidth ranges from 76 cents to $1.92 per month.
Of course larger carriers with their own backbone (like AT&T) sometimes pay even less. As Hansell notes, these costs exist regardless of whether anyone is actually using the network. Obviously, there are a litany of other costs that go into being a provider (support, installation, huge executive compensation), but there's no data to suggest these costs are growing at a rate that would require charging users overage fees of 2,500% over cost.The most logical reason for the desire to shift to this overage model remains a fear that Internet TV will erode carrier television revenues. By monetizing third party video delivery by the gigabyte (be it via Netflix or DirecTV's " VOD"), carriers can ensure their relevance in the face of television's evolution. As a perk, consumers pay more money for the same product -- one that consistently costs less to provide. |
1 recommendation |
Markup is whatever people will payWhat do you think the markup is on the bean juice from Starbucks? People pay it so the price remains the same. When they leave for greener pastures, deals will be offered. | |
| | |
Re: Markup is whatever people will payThat is the problem. Because of monopolies and duopolies, it's very easy to charge much more than is reasonable. For most people there is nowhere else to go. | |
| | | |
Re: Markup is whatever people will paysaid by insomniac84:That is the problem. Because of monopolies and duopolies, it's very easy to charge much more than is reasonable. For most people there is nowhere else to go. Exactly. While people in a larger city may have a few more options, people in most suburbs and rural areas have 1 or no options and cannot switch except back to dial-up. Most do not want to do that, and have no other viable broadband offer. Also, most Starbucks don't suddenly add $3.00 markup to a product that has already been on the market for years at $1.10 and is consistently getting cheaper as time passes. In telecom that is what is going on. A product which has been offered unlimited for years is now in jeopardy of becoming marked-up as a luxury commodity after starting out as such and then becoming an average product that most could afford. Also, the cost is constantly coming down and they still want to start charging more and offering less! I suppose one good thing can come of this: if companies start seriously pushing this it can give a serious boost to the idea of making broadband a utility. The companies that are looking to overcharge for the same or less service may actually cause their own downfall over the idea. Caps and limiting bandwidth is already showing signs of mass anger by the public. | |
| | | | Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA 1 edit |
Sammer
Member
2009-Apr-21 12:45 pm
Avoid competition at all costs!said by jimbo21503:said by insomniac84:That is the problem. Because of monopolies and duopolies, it's very easy to charge much more than is reasonable. For most people there is nowhere else to go. I suppose one good thing can come of this: if companies start seriously pushing this it can give a serious boost to the idea of making broadband a utility. The companies that are looking to overcharge for the same or less service may actually cause their own downfall over the idea. Caps and limiting bandwidth is already showing signs of mass anger by the public. Why does TWC want overage charges, to avoid video competition and price gouge. Why is the U. S. broadband network beginning to suck compared to some other countries, because AT&T, Comcast, TWC, and the other Dinosaurs think they're entitled to make outrageous profits and excessive top executive pay without competition. These Dinosaurs and their heavily lobbied (bribed?) Congress and State Legislature critters make sure the cost of entry for any new competitor is outrageously high. | |
| | | | |
to jimbo21503
Re: Markup is whatever people will paysaid by jimbo21503:Exactly. While people in a larger city may have a few more options, people in most suburbs and rural areas have 1 or no options and cannot switch except back to dial-up. Most do not want to do that, and have no other viable broadband offer. Also, most Starbucks don't suddenly add $3.00 markup to a product that has already been on the market for years at $1.10 and is consistently getting cheaper as time passes. Starbucks has been getting disruptive competitors, McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts "cheap latte" products being rolled out. Now is there anything remotely on the horizon as being a disruptive technology to the duopoly other than BPL (LOL) and WiMAX (and Clear seems pretty dead by now, its only hope is business/govt contracts in the city it did manage to set up service, but many cities already have their own 4.9 ghz WiMAX or HSDPA networks). | |
| | | | | |
Re: Markup is whatever people will paysaid by patcat88:Now is there anything remotely on the horizon as being a disruptive technology to the duopoly other than BPL (LOL) and WiMAX (and Clear seems pretty dead by now, its only hope is business/govt contracts in the city it did manage to set up service, but many cities already have their own 4.9 ghz WiMAX or HSDPA networks). Even those will be a joke. BPL will probably never see the light of day (for many reasons... it just isn't very feasible). WiMax will eventually come out and while a few cities are pushing their own networks, the rest will only see WiMax or any fixed wireless through the carriers that are already out there: AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile... That will not create competition, just a new way to get same internet (probably less speed). | |
|
| | tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO |
to insomniac84
said by insomniac84:That is the problem. Because of monopolies and duopolies, it's very easy to charge much more than is reasonable. For most people there is nowhere else to go. And let's not forget the issue of collusion which may very well be taking place | |
|
| |
to Swingerhead
said by Swingerhead:What do you think the markup is on the bean juice from Starbucks? People pay it so the price remains the same. When they leave for greener pastures, deals will be offered. Maybe- but Starbuck's have been closing all over over the country, so what does that tell you? | |
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
KrK
Premium Member
2009-Apr-21 2:28 pm
Re: Markup is whatever people will paysaid by jazzlady:Maybe- but Starbuck's have been closing all over over the country, so what does that tell you? That you can get just as tasty coffee for a lot cheaper somewhere else. Try getting just as fast broadband a lot cheaper somewhere else. There isn't a "somewhere else" nor is there "A lot cheaper" either. | |
| | | | |
Re: Markup is whatever people will paysaid by KrK:said by jazzlady:Maybe- but Starbuck's have been closing all over over the country, so what does that tell you? That you can get just as tasty coffee for a lot cheaper somewhere else. Try getting just as fast broadband a lot cheaper somewhere else. There isn't a "somewhere else" nor is there "A lot cheaper" either. LOL You're right. As far as coffee goes, nothing beats the coffee I make myself, at home. Grinding your own beans fresh for every pot makes a huge difference, believe me... As far as getting cheaper broadband- you got me on that one. I have 2 choices where I live- cable modem at rip off prices, or dog slow overpriced Verizon 3 Mbps DSL. I love the Verizon rep who called me last week trying to convince me that in actuality- their 3 Mbps DSL was "just as fast" as my 15 Mbps cable connection... Uh...sorry- no. Last I checked, 3 was one fifth of 15. I can see he was at the top of his class in math.... | |
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
KrK
Premium Member
2009-Apr-22 3:50 pm
Re: Markup is whatever people will paysaid by jazzlady:Uh...sorry- no. Last I checked, 3 was one fifth of 15. I can see he was at the top of his class in math.... It's that "new Math" where the answer is relative depending on what you need the outcome to be | |
|
| |
| | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2009-Apr-21 11:30 am
Re: Metered Billing?Common sense? He's not making much sense to me at all.
He says that Time Warner was shouted down because they were transparent, but AT&T is moving forward without telling consumers -- and somehow that makes AT&T right? So let's get this straight, AT&T and TW exist to provide a service. When they want to change their service and their customers become outraged, they should simply not inform their customers of the coming changes and move forward with them anyway?
Then he goes on to say that they should be allowed to move to usage billing because it won't impact their customers, but it will encourage infrastructure improvements? Well, who is going to pay for those improvements if not the move to usage based billing which will significantly raise rates -- or cause rates to skyrocket a year or so from now as the average home users usage increases?
But wait, there is more. He then goes on to say that government regulation is needed?!? Although to be fair, it somewhat sounded like he meant for every industry but his, but I wasn't clear on that point.
I'm not sure this guy really has any coherent opinion of his own, much less one that is worthy of debate. CEO or not, he sounds like a crackpot. | |
| |
1 recommendation |
to Bob61571
The first article had no option, it was just a news report by the CEO about what is going on. The second article clearly showed him in support of metered billing, but didn't clarify any of his points... let me do so for him. Here is his points in support of metered billing: quote:
- Networks would be more aggressively upgraded for new and advanced services
- ISPs could stop or reduce managing their networks during peak periods
- Online video would be more available and deliverable on upgraded networks
- Legal P2P services would be faster and more available
- Only a small percentage of customers would pay more (those who use the most bandwidth)
- Light users would pay less
- Most would see no change in their bill at all
Here it is again with my own clarification of these points: - Networks would be more aggressively upgraded for new and advanced services
- In our good time... just as we have been doing. * How will this change anything?
- ISPs could stop or reduce managing their networks during peak periods
- Less for more! We stop protecting because we prevent you from using the service fully!
- Online video would be more available and deliverable on upgraded networks
- As long as you get it from US (not HULU or YouTube) and PAY PREMIUMS FOR IT! If you choose to go with outside video sources all we ask you to do is PAY US PREMIUMS FOR IT! Innovation at work!
- Legal P2P services would be faster and more available
- As long as you use OUR SOFTWARE (on OSes we feel like supporting -- hear that mac, linux users?), OUR NETWORK, and have LESS CHOICE! Want to use our apps to download video or programs? Want to use a third-party P2P program? See the dollar signs in our eyes?
- Only a small percentage of customers would pay more (those who use the most bandwidth)
- Because the internet will never innovate when users are limited in what they can an cannot do without paying premiums for it.
- Light users would pay less
- No different then now. The package that today STARTS at $30/month will still START at $30/month... as long as you continue to only check your email. For the rest of users using P2P, youTube, Hulu, or any other innovative sites: PAY US MORE!
- Most would see no change in their bill at all
- Actually, we should say 'SOME' cause more and more are using services like CBS video, Hulu, youTube, etc.
| |
| | | S_engineer Premium Member join:2007-05-16 Chicago, IL |
Re: Metered Billing?His first statement about the upgrades is false. TW made money last year with only selective plans for upgrades. Why would anybody trust what TW says when thier own COO states that they won't upgrade consumers in non-competitive markets? On sept.9, 2008 TWC chief operating officer Landel Hobbs said at a conference in California that his company's strategy will be to deploy DOCSIS 3.0 "surgically" in markets where it is most needed, but not in markets where the company is finding support for its tiered broadband services. » www.fiercetelecom.com/st ··· 08-09-09 | |
| | | | |
Re: Metered Billing?said by S_engineer:On sept.9, 2008 TWC chief operating officer Landel Hobbs said at a conference in California that his company's strategy will be to deploy DOCSIS 3.0 "surgically" in markets where it is most needed, but not in markets where the company is finding support for its tiered broadband services. » www.fiercetelecom.com/st ··· 08-09-09 THAT is ridiculous! Some of these companies are looking more and more like greedy scammers than anything else. Amazing what lack of competition will do to the industry. | |
| | | | andre2 join:2005-08-24 Brookline, MA |
to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:On sept.9, 2008 TWC chief operating officer Landel Hobbs said at a conference in California that his company's strategy will be to deploy DOCSIS 3.0 "surgically" in markets where it is most needed, but not in markets where the company is finding support for its tiered broadband services. » www.fiercetelecom.com/st ··· 08-09-09 So in a nutshell, the people who pay for the upgrades will be the ones who support caps/metering, but the ones who actually get them will be the ones who don't. | |
|
POBRes Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium Member join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA |
POB
Premium Member
2009-Apr-21 10:30 am
The sequel is coming to an ISP near you very soonDon't worry, As we speak, I'm sure TWC et al. are furiously assembling astroturf groups and are otherwise in the process of creating industry think tanks to underscore the myth of bandwidth scarcity. They'll have some stats soon that will appear to the average, dumbfuck Congressional representative as legitimate. And just as Schumer et al. get their cut of campaign re-election funds, TWC will be right back in the business of metering. | |
|
1 recommendation |
Shmo
Anon
2009-Apr-21 10:30 am
Guy got simple facts WRONGThis guy can't even get the simple stuff right (Hanging CMTSs from poles? what is he smoking?). Why should I believe anything he wrote?
How about he come up with simple data like the average amount of data consumers use? Wouldn't that a BASIC and NEEDED FACT for any USAGE argument? | |
| | |
DGLewis
Member
2009-Apr-21 11:16 am
Re: Guy got simple facts WRONGsaid by Shmo :
This guy can't even get the simple stuff right (Hanging CMTSs from poles? what is he smoking?). The device he's referring to hanging off a pole (where the "high-capacity fiber cable" switches over to "cable TV... wires") isn't a CMTS, it's an HFC node. Which can be pole-mounted or even hung on the cable strand. If you're going to call someone an idiot, it's best to not be yourself an idiot. | |
| | |
1 recommendation |
RR user
Anon
2009-Apr-21 12:06 pm
Re: Guy got simple facts WRONGsaid by DGLewis:said by Shmo :
This guy can't even get the simple stuff right (Hanging CMTSs from poles? what is he smoking?). The device he's referring to hanging off a pole (where the "high-capacity fiber cable" switches over to "cable TV... wires") isn't a CMTS, it's an HFC node. Which can be pole-mounted or even hung on the cable strand. If you're going to call someone an idiot, it's best to not be yourself an idiot. Did YOU READ the article? said by NY Times : If the company needs to add a new Cable Modem Termination System, the device that connects cable wires to the Internet, it will pay $6,000 if the device is in one of its existing facilities. And if Comcast needs install a new C.M.T.S. on a pole, stringing a new fiber optic cable to it, the cost is $20,000.
Take your own advice about idiots. | |
|
| jsz0 Premium Member join:2008-01-23 Jewett City, CT 2 edits |
jsz0 to Shmo
Premium Member
2009-Apr-21 1:17 pm
to Shmo
You're absolutely right. This guys facts and numbers are flat out wrong. $6k for a CMTS? That's pure fantasy. The actual cost is at bare minimum 10x more and realistically more like 15x more. A single card for a UBR10k costs 4-5x more than the price he's quoting. It's not that hard to call up a Cisco reseller and find these facts out. Makes me wonder if this guy just made up these numbers without any fact checking at all.
EDIT: Apparently he's confusing the term CMTS with node. High quality journalism. Splitting nodes doesn't solve bandwidth contention at the HFC level unless you spend the money on more capacity on the CMTS side also. That's the expensive part. | |
| | | AJR2 join:2009-03-18 Alabaster, AL |
AJR2
Member
2009-Apr-21 5:49 pm
Re: Guy got simple facts WRONGsaid by jsz0:This guys facts and numbers are flat out wrong. $6k for a CMTS? That's pure fantasy. The actual cost is at bare minimum 10x more and realistically more like 15x more. A single card for a UBR10k costs 4-5x more than the price he's quoting. Splitting nodes doesn't solve bandwidth contention at the HFC level unless you spend the money on more capacity on the CMTS side also. That's the expensive part. jsz0, You are right on the money. A fully loaded Cisco CMTS will cost Hundreds of Thousands of dollars. | |
| | | | |
Re: Guy got simple facts WRONGsaid by AJR2:said by jsz0:This guys facts and numbers are flat out wrong. $6k for a CMTS? That's pure fantasy. The actual cost is at bare minimum 10x more and realistically more like 15x more. A single card for a UBR10k costs 4-5x more than the price he's quoting. Splitting nodes doesn't solve bandwidth contention at the HFC level unless you spend the money on more capacity on the CMTS side also. That's the expensive part. jsz0, You are right on the money. A fully loaded Cisco CMTS will cost Hundreds of Thousands of dollars. How much does a Chinese CMTS cost without the brand name? | |
|
Desdinova Premium Member join:2003-01-26 Gaithersburg, MD |
Desdinova
Premium Member
2009-Apr-21 10:30 am
Hmmm...The hard data to support metered billing should be EASY to find: it's next to the pot of gold over the rainbow beside the magic wishing unicorn... | |
| | en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2009-Apr-21 11:49 am
Re: Hmmm...Right - and bring it over to Wall Street. AIG, former Bear Stearns, Madoff are all waiting for it. | |
|
SSX4lifeHello World Premium Member join:2004-02-13 1 edit |
SSX4life
Premium Member
2009-Apr-21 10:32 am
Fail trainThere is no hard data that they need to charge by the bit / bite / etc.
They are trying to categorize the fact if something is in lean supply they can make changes to the methods of how to regulate it.
For example, lets look at gas / fuel charges by airlines.
If gas was 4 bucks a gallon airlines added additional fees left and right to things and cut corners. What they should have done was make smarter planes that took less fuel (a.k.a. not do what airbus was doing with their A380).
Now that prices have come down, why are the fees still in place?
Companies need to stop shafting their customers, build a smarter business model, and be more fluid. Get with the 21st century and start building better equipment to handle the needs of your customers (data / video / etc. is only going to grow, stop trying to make excuses for not implementing better methods and policies)
Need I also remind you that in the early 90's the US Government gave the companies TONS of money to upgrade their systems and they did jack sh!t with. The last thing these companies need to do is NOT upgrade their systems, let the USA fall even FURTHER behind other countries in development, and charge MORE for having a monopoly over a market.
This whole idea is full of fail. | |
| | DarkLogixTexan and Proud Premium Member join:2008-10-23 Baytown, TX 1 edit |
DarkLogix
Premium Member
2009-Apr-21 11:10 am
Re: Fail traindelete post please (the image wouldn't post due to where it was hosted) | |
| | RARPSL join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY |
to SSX4life
said by SSX4life:For example, lets look at gas / fuel charges by airlines. If gas was 4 bucks a gallon airlines added additional fees left and right to things and cut corners. What they should have done was make smarter planes that took less fuel (a.k.a. not do what airbus was doing with their A380). The lead time to purchase/build a new plane (assuming that a more fuel efficent plane model is in production) is about 1-2 years. Thus the need for fuel surcharges is the only way to go (ignoring the cost of purchasing it if it was available "Right Now" and how long it would take to pay back from the fuel savings). Now that prices have come down, why are the fees still in place?
This is double set of books method that is used for pricing gas. If your costs go up you bump your price while waiting to drop your price when the costs go down. | |
|
DaveDudeNo Fear join:1999-09-01 New Jersey |
JustificationI am all against meter billing, but if they are going to push it. They should offer a significantly reduce ppu price. Overall I think they as not making any sense for metered, unless the price is alot less. | |
| | •••••• | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
I have an answer.. It's GREED..Yep. They're noticing that alot more traffic is going through their pipes and they're looking for a way to profit off of it.
They didn't expect that newer generation technologies would take advantage of the bandwidth people are PAYING for. Instead, they whine about it and on top of the connection speed the customer is paying for, they want to limit the amount transferred.
It's like having a new car, driving it for 500 miles, then having to pay for each additional mile or miles. | |
| | 1 edit |
Re: I have an answer.. It's GREED..said by SimbaSeven:Yep. They're noticing that alot more traffic is going through their pipes and they're looking for a way to profit off of it. They didn't expect that newer generation technologies would take advantage of the bandwidth people are PAYING for. Instead, they whine about it and on top of the connection speed the customer is paying for, they want to limit the amount transferred. It's like having a new car, driving it for 500 miles, then having to pay for each additional mile or miles. Its like paying for every mile you drive at 1 dollar per mile... does that make more sense? they will boast that a mile is a lot, it will take you half an hour to walk a mile... it like saying you can only drive 1 mile a day, anything over is going to be overage charges... this of course makes obsolutely no sense this is just plain robbery at gun point... the japanese, korean, netherland has 100mbit pipe and has no limit in usage. they are getting more for the same price that most american paid for these lousy dsl, cable crap what a sad sad world we live in where corporate greed are all that matters... we the consumer are sucker for these scum bag... correction, they notice that they can make even more profits by charging extra on usage without having to subscribe more user... all they need is some bs excuses or statistic to convince we the consumer into buying into their metered nonesense... | |
|
|
Cash grab...While I appreciate Saul Hansell's efforts to get to the "truth," in this case I'm afraid to say that it is just a cash grab by the ever-greedy and anti-competitive cable companies.
What interests me more is that Saul Hansell even considered that the cable companies plight was altruistic in nature. He apparently see's "moral fiber" where we consumers only see monopolistic greed. | |
| | |
Shamayim
Premium Member
2009-Apr-21 11:45 am
Re: Cash grab...said by axiomatic:He apparently see's "moral fiber" where we consumers only see monopolistic greed. Is that moral fiber to the home? | |
|
|
Misleading costs...There are more costs than just buying a GigE for $10k/mo. What about the costs of labor, maintainance, and equipment?
I would say that the totals still do not justify metered billing unless it's a High Cap + metered billing. Something like a 300Gb cap and then the metered kicks in. | |
| | •••••• | me1212 join:2008-11-20 Lees Summit, MO ·Google Fiber
|
me1212
Member
2009-Apr-21 10:46 am
No data?If the give no data I will not support a phail meter billing system. If it were a real metered bill(PAYG) system I think it would work better ten people would pay for what they use. $10 for a 5m connection and what ever it cost the ISP for a GB of data we would pay 2x that. If 1Gb cost them $0.20 we would pay $0.40, I do not know what it cost I am just using numbers that are easy to double. | |
| | •••••• | 1 edit |
Aozora
Member
2009-Apr-21 10:57 am
Here is the money shot!"The most logical reason for the desire to shift to this overage model remains a fear that Internet TV will erode carrier television revenues. By monetizing third party video delivery by the gigabyte (be it via Netflix or DirecTV's "VOD"), carriers can ensure their relevance in the face of television's evolution. As a perk, consumers pay more money for the same product -- one that consistently costs less to provide."
I can speak that anyone around my age and younger values the Internet a lot more than the television. Only the old people really care about the TV. Out with the old in with the new.
I still think 1 dollar a GB is monstrously outrageous. If it was 10 cents a GB I might say they are just trying to run a nice business model to make extra cash but at their price gouging I can only say that they like to exploit the consumer's ignorance to the max.
Here we go Money talks Here comes the money
Money money Money money Money money Money money Money
Dolla dolla Dolla dolla
Ching ching Bling Bling At the check out
If you ain't talkin' money Then your talkin' don't matter | |
| | •••••••••••••• | screavic4 Premium Member join:2006-08-11 Paron, AR |
screavic4
Premium Member
2009-Apr-21 11:07 am
Most Carriers...Most carriers saw that it was alright for wireless data to be limited to 5GB and people still obtained it. Why, because these carriers havn't grown to these areas and people need something BESIDES dialup. I have Alltel Axcess, granted I have spent alot of $$ for ways to get a better signal than 1x, I am on a "unlimited but fair" plan. Meaning it's truly unlimited as long as I don't abuse the system by downloading a ton of information every month.
Not only do most wireless carriers limit you to 5gb, they claim they have unlimited internet, and they charge more for MUCH MUCH less.
I thought the wave of wireless "was supposed to be cheaper" because of the lack of line maintenance etc. Of course this would be true if there wasn't a demand for broadband in rural areas. Do I think this government sponsored broadband bill is going to work... NO
Now I wait to be attacked... | |
| | |
Re: Most Carriers...I honestly believe ISPs want the wireless model on their wired networks. | |
|
SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN 1 edit |
Vast difference in colo / wide-area network CapEx and OpExDoes anybody do investigative journalism anymore? The operational costs at the head-end where cross-connects are contained to the same building is a vastly different case from operating and maintaining miles of infrastructure. I highlighted the elements I had direct costs for here: » Re: I think we are seeing how TWC will try to "educate" peopleIf the gains were really 2500% (as Karl Bode suggests), you couldn't beat venture capitalists off with a stick if you expressed interest in starting up a new service provider. I'm not saying there is no profit in the system, but to argue it's 2500% is absurd. If that were the case all of these muni-ISPs wouldn't be having financial troubles. | |
| | •••• | |
costlooks like this is the question of the hour day whatever.
what is the actual cost of data transmission and how exactly is it quantified? like most things i'd imagine that the cost is relative to scale. but what is the cost? | |
| | •••••• | |
Can an ISP still make moneyIf Time Warner makes good money splitting a 38 Mbps line between 500 or even just 250 users can they still make money if they have to reduce that to say 5 or 10 users?
A $10,000 per month 1 GB connection starts to get real thin in the face of just a hundred users that want to sit down to a little HD after dinner.
Seems like a big change to me. And, of course, it all depends on how widely HD streaming gets adopted. | |
| | ••• | |
Text message rates for broadband?I'm waiting for the day when we're all charged a dollar to check our email, or worse. I'm sure they'd charge text message rates for broadband internet if they thought they could get away with it. Ten cents a byte would be pretty sweet for the ISPs. I'm sure they could whip up an astroturf group to prove they're non-viable without charging by the byte.
Buy 10 bytes, get one free - just like the grocery store! Such a deal! | |
| SSidlovOther Things On My Mind Premium Member join:2000-03-03 Pompton Lakes, NJ |
SSidlov
Premium Member
2009-Apr-21 12:42 pm
Just applying SMS profitability to ISPEveryone is looking to get something as profitable as SMS text plans on an ISP. Even if it is a very low cost of a few dollars to upgrade per customer, when you have millions of them, it becomes (as they say) 'real money' when added up. So, the companies are looking for an acceptable scapegoat to create a new revenue stream, such as 'heavy users' or P2P. There's no plans for 'light users' since that would/could mean a loss of revenue per household. The meager competition that some ISPs have has been holding the billing prices down for years now without increases. Systems such as CV are very successful with 75% of homes passed using the services. Income is static. (Though in CV's case they dropped $5 of the $15 discount (only if you signed up for the discount, that is.) that they used to give to customers with all three services.) How do you generate more income when your general customer base is not growing anymore and competition light as it is, prevents you from increasing the pricing for existing services? Upgrade your systems more (in a bad ecomomy) and allow them to pay for additional service levels - risky and without a guarantee of 'take-up' or rework the existing billing to make more money?
CV has announced that they are almost complete with their Docsis 3 upgrade at a cost of $300 mill. They also rolled out free wi-fi for their customers at the same time. Since they CAN NOT put their wifi in Manhattan (not their service area), for the most part this is to support the commuters who will mostly find the wifi at their bus/train stations and along the route to NYC and their kids who will use the local shops/community zones that are covered by the service (hopefully saving the parents money on cell phone data plans). Most malls now have free wifi too. Hopefully, for CV this extra service may keep some people from switching to FIOS as it rolls out in the CV footprint, and may in time be a revenue stream, too for non-CV customers.
Metered Internet and computer usage billing isn't new, it's OLD. VERY OLD. When I was in college (70's) I had metered computer time based on the computer class I was taking. We used punch cards and teletypes back then Someone remembered that back in the days of 1200-2400 baud BBS systems like the Source and the original CompUserve (the original system that ran on PDP-10s), that people used to have accounts and pay upwards of $5,000 a year to connect at $25.95 an hour during peak times. That was back in the mid 80's-early 90's, and would be like paying (off the top of my head), $20,000 a year after adjusting for inflation today.
There used to be truism: The Internet (or Compuserve) was only 'fast/responsive' when Monday Night Football or StarTrek was on TV. | |
| |
Metered billing, caps, etc.Whahhhhhh!!!!! That is what I hear from the internet providers these days. And thing of it is if I keep hearing it I will cancel my service.
I am tired of "we are bleeding" mentality of AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Time Warner, etc. They don't deserve my business if they think that lieing to me and then acting like a broken, wounded down on their luck company is going to garner the slightest sympathies.
Mark my words! They will destroy themselves ala GM, Chrysler, Wachovia, Bear Stears, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Enron, Worldcom, etc. They will self implode from pure greed. And I won't shed a tear. | |
| | Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA |
Sammer
Member
2009-Apr-21 1:33 pm
Re: Metered billing, caps, etc.said by jkeelsnc:Whahhhhhh!!!!! That is what I hear from the internet providers these days. They sure are a bunch of whiners and the consumers are the ones that pay for all their crying. If only they had real competition we could replace them and really give them something to whine about. | |
|
ctceo Premium Member join:2001-04-26 South Bend, IN |
ctceo
Premium Member
2009-Apr-21 1:42 pm
There is noneThat is the answer. | |
| | •••••••
| | |
|
|