dslreports logo
 story category
The Metered Billing Fight Is About To Get Ugly
Think tanks, astroturfers and policy flaks fire up unreality engines....

A new bill aimed at derailing unreasonable efforts at per-byte broadband billing faces a steep uphill climb in DC, where AT&T, Verizon and Comcast lobbyists usually get what they want -- particularly if they're working together. Time Warner Cable's effort to hoist low caps and metered billing upon consumers was a sloppy affair, and the public backlash created a unique instance where genuine consumer activism changed the course of a giant corporation.

But that victory was against one company who made a significant number of missteps. With the threat of regulation, the alarm bells have sounded at every giant ISP eager to ditch flat-rate pricing and experiment with billing by the byte. As such, you can expect the gloves to come off and the rhetoric to heat up. How hot? Think of the obnoxious rhetoric surrounding the network neutrality debate circa 2006, and triple it.

This next push for metered billing will be a multi-million dollar effort, utilizing the full arsenal of incumbent public policy relations. That of course means heavy use of lobbyists, paid PR flaks, pseudo-scientific think tanks and even artificial consumer advocacy groups. Collectively, they'll spend the next year or two trying to convince the public and daft lawmakers that metered billing is patriotic, good for children and puppies, and results in vast oceans of innovation pouring out wistfully upon a dreamy sea of competitive innovation.

As Phillip Dampier of Stop The Cap notes, the push began in earnest this week, with a flood of astroturfers and paid policy goofs flooding Internet message boards with the gospel of their handlers. PR departments fired up their engines as well, AT&T insisting to us that their metered billing trials in Reno and Beaumont, Texas are really about making sure that "grandma" gets a fair shake. The American Cable Association's feigned empathy was equally noxious in a statement pretending metered billing is about giving users "control:"

quote:
"Consumption-based billing plans will give consumers the ultimate control over how much they spend each month for their Internet access. Rep. Massa's bill would have a chilling effect on broadband operators offering these types of consumer-friendly options. Internet usage payment models will allow broadband providers to better manage their networks by imposing higher costs on the heaviest users who often are the ones responsible for slowing speeds for all users on the Internet."
Of course killing flat-rate pricing gives control -- to carriers worried about an uncertain future. The push for metered billing comes from investors who are interested in charging more money for the same service at a time when broadband delivery costs are dropping. The push comes from executives who are interested in protecting TV revenues from Internet video by nickel and diming the households of tomorrow with overage fees as high as 2,000% over cost. That truth doesn't sell, so it has to be dressed up under the guise of helping grandma.

However well intentioned, regulation limiting pricing models is never going to get past incumbent lobbyists and a well-lobbied Congress. If government is going to get involved, they're better served by taking actions that foster competition. As we've seen with Cablevision and Verizon's reluctance to impose caps or meters, and Time Warner's reluctance to trial meters in FiOS markets, competition is kind of like DEET for dumb, self-serving telecom ideas. The threat of customer defection will keep carriers on their best behavior.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

2 edits

1 recommendation

S_engineer

Premium Member

Liars

If Att wanted to give "grandma" her fair shake, then they'd lower the prices for the measly 50MB of usage that "grandma" uses per month.

This is about setting the precedent of a low cap before even more Video is introduced to the Web. This is a money grab, plain and simple!
I think it's high time congress dragged these clowns to the hill and interogated them on where all of the money for upgrades through tax incentives has gone. They did it to AIG, and GM, they should now do it to TW, and the Death Star. Remember the 40 mbps to the home in 10 from the Clinton years.
If they don't like the idea of a PUC regulating them then hit them with this. They redefine a cap as cost since it has obvious pricing implications, with the regulating body being split with the FCC and IRS. Wouldn't that be a fun audit!

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

Re: Liars

We need caps to avoid the Internet Apocalypse! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: Liars

said by Jim Kirk:

We need caps to avoid the Internet Apocalypse! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Don't worry, AT&T and Time Warner et al will happily sell you their Apocalypse add-on package for the ultra low price of $9.99 a month.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: Liars

said by Matt3:
said by Jim Kirk:

We need caps to avoid the Internet Apocalypse! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Don't worry, AT&T and Time Warner et al will happily sell you their Apocalypse add-on package for the ultra low price of $9.99 a month.
but also dont forget AT&T is the telephone company so they will have a 10.99 Apocalypse Processing fee and a 159.99 early termination fee with really small print stating(ETF may still be charged if Internet explodes causing unexpected end of service).

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

1 edit

1 recommendation

en102

Member

Re: Liars

Yup - that $9.99 /month fee requires:

TV service/phone service and...
- $200 installation fee
- the modern day equivalent of a local loop charge
- requlatory surcharge fee (cost of doing business with government)
- regulatory revovery fee (cost of meeting government requirements)
- profit recovery fee (fee charged if company isn't making enough profit off of you, or in general)
- modem rental fee
- demark fee
- electrical usage fee (gotta power those VRAD/RT/fiber nodes)
- battery replacement fee (gotta replace those batteries in the exploding VRADS)

uncleFester to Kearnstd

Anon

to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

said by Matt3:

but also dont forget AT&T is the telephone company so they will have a 10.99 Apocalypse Processing fee and a 159.99 early termination fee with really small print stating(ETF may still be charged if Internet explodes causing unexpected end of service).
.. i'm really curious how 'early termination fee' and 'apocalypse' kinda jive with application of said fees (or just HOW would one get a refund?)

backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2

backness

Member

Re: Liars

They'll just take it as a deposit

Datx
Huh? What?
join:2001-01-21
Austin, TX

Datx to Matt3

Member

to Matt3
I thought it was for each PC connected...
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO
·Google Fiber

me1212 to S_engineer

Member

to S_engineer
Yeah, lets take tw's or att's $40(or closest in price) package. If right now I were to pay $40 for no cap and so was 'grandma' and they put a 40GB cap and STILL kept it at $40 how does that make grandma pay less if she only uses 500MB? If that was what they really wanted they would make a real metered billing aka PAYG plan. For like 20/5 for $10 and if 1GB cost them $0.10 we would pay $0.20. I support this bill because it stops us from getting price gouged and skrewed. As far as I know it does not stop metered billing just makes them not be able to gouge us, and that is good. If it does make metering illegal then that part needs to go the Gov should not be able to say that, they should be able to say they cannot gouge/skrew us. And they can and I think they should.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB to S_engineer

Premium Member

to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:

I think it's high time congress dragged these clowns to the hill and interogated them on where all of the money for upgrades through tax incentives has gone. They did it to AIG, and GM, they should now do it to TW, and the Death Star.
I would hardly call this particular event you refer to as "dragging." More like rolling out the red carpet and throwing roses at their feet. These chumpstains from AIG et al. got the royal treatment. Never in a million years would I ever refer to it as an "interrogation." More like Congre$$ional lickspittles verbally fellating their constituency.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo to S_engineer

MVM

to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:

If Att wanted to give "grandma" her fair shake, then they'd lower the prices for the measly 50MB of usage that "grandma" uses per month.
As long as you realize that lowering the price paid by the low usage subscribers will dramatically increase the costs of moderate to high end subscribers. The MRC income of flat-rate billing keeps things evenly distributed today.

The low usage subscribers make up a much greater percentage of the customer base than most on this forum think.

S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

1 edit

1 recommendation

S_engineer

Premium Member

Re: Liars

I disagree, i think that most users on this forum understand the mass populace is using only minimal amounts of bandwidth. This is the crux of the argument.
for years these companies have ignored forecasts about the exponential growth of the Internet. They were able to accomodate and oversell their userbase only because of the low usage subscribers. Few carriers decided to take the upgrade route. The rest are now taking the route of upgrading nothing at a time where bandwidth usage forecasts continue to climb. A Cap or an overage fee does not fix the technical issues that still loom. Their lack making the necessary upgrades the keep up what their own forecast were calling for are their own fault. This was clearly a case where quarterly reports became more important than the long term position that these companies needed to take.

And Major...you have a point...maybe Gitmo would be in order!

EDIT* And another thing, if there was such a bandwidth apocolyse looming, then why would these carriers line up to sign agreements with online video service ESPN360?

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Liars

said by S_engineer:

I disagree, i think that most users on this forum understand the mass populace is using only minimal amounts of bandwidth.
I don't know, people seem to get on board with Karl when he suggests a majority of people will be impacted by caps of even 100GB.
said by S_engineer:

This is the crux of the argument.
for years these companies have ignored forecasts about the exponential growth of the Internet.
I don't think it's that black and white. Residential Internet options that people sign up for today were born out of opportunity to reuse existing infrastructure (twisted pair copper phone lines and coax cable), and were not necessarily designed to be the best / most scalable platform out there.
said by S_engineer:

The rest are now taking the route of upgrading nothing at a time where bandwidth usage forecasts continue to climb. A Cap or an overage fee does not fix the technical issues that still loom.
Caps do nothing but attempt to buy you time while planning the next network upgrade. They are imperfect, as they don't address peak congestion. In most cases caps are really only good as a published benchmark to use when dealing with "network abuse" -- a poor term which doesn't necessarily mean that you're doing anything illegal, just using more capacity than the system is really designed to handle.
said by S_engineer:

Their lack making the necessary upgrades the keep up what their own forecast were calling for are their own fault. This was clearly a case where quarterly reports became more important than the long term position that these companies needed to take.
I don't think it's quite that simple. I find it interesting that nobody every questions why carrier bandwidth is so inexpensive, especially considering these are also "greedy corporations" building out those networks. The difference is carrier bandwidth has always been sold in full dedicated capacity, or burstable capacity with metered billing. The link is set where more bandwidth means more revenue which means (hopefully) more profit. The residential ISPs with flat rate billing have very little incentive to upgrade bandwidth, except when scarcity would cause subscribers to leave.
said by S_engineer:

EDIT* And another thing, if there was such a bandwidth apocolyse looming, then why would these carriers line up to sign agreements with online video service ESPN360?
The cost of signing up for ESPN360 is minimal for large ISPs (in the grand scheme of things), and if it prevents users from leaving it's a win.

ytr22
@suddenlink.net

ytr22 to SpaethCo

Anon

to SpaethCo
"The low usage subscribers make up a much greater percentage of the customer base than most on this forum think."

And at the end of the day it doesn't matter, because both high bandwidth users and low bandwidth users are already being RAPED on the cost per byte.

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

1 edit

insomniac84 to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:

The low usage subscribers make up a much greater percentage of the customer base than most on this forum think.
Until more and more people start getting more services over the internet. Like TV and movies. Sure right now grandma might only use 50mb, but in 20-30 years that isn't going to be true. Hell it might not even be true in 10 years. Cable companies are most likely predicting much more heavy use of the internet.

If you give them what seems like an inch today. In 20 years that inch will be a million miles. They will have created a system where they get to make heavy profit for delivering services that compete with their tv service.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Liars

said by insomniac84:

If you give them what seems like an inch today. In 20 years that inch will be a million miles. They will have created a system where they get to make heavy profit for delivering services that compete with their tv service.
You're assuming that only broadcast video services are able to deliver Internet access with that statement.

Public access to the Internet has grown on non-dedicated access media from its earliest days. The primary method started out as modems using the public switched telephone network, and eventually grew to technologies that "piggyback" existing deployed infrastructure to reduce the cost of deployment. There is only so much the current broadband providers can raise their rates. The networks are currently below market equilibrium because they are leveraging existing deployed cable plant. The current pricing is such that competitors can't afford to build out new infrastructure to establish new Internet service and make a profit. The current broadband companies can only raise prices by a certain amount before it will become cost effective for other companies to build out their own purpose-built Internet networks to residential markets.

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84

Member

Re: Liars

said by SpaethCo:

The current pricing is such that competitors can't afford to build out new infrastructure to establish new Internet service and make a profit.
Not true. Municipalities seem to have no problem building it up and making profit. Granted it's easier for them to get start up loans, but still. Even verizon is replacing their existing network with fiber. So it's incorrect to claim they can't afford it.
said by SpaethCo:

The current broadband companies can only raise prices by a certain amount before it will become cost effective for other companies to build out their own purpose-built Internet networks to residential markets.
So basically they are leveraging their size to prevent competition with artificially low rates and now they want to be able to continue to advertise a low base price while still getting an increase via the under-advertised metered part of the price?

I think not. They should have to advertise a flat price, that is the only way to keep everything fair. It's bad enough that they don't include fees and taxes in the advertised price. You want them to advertise a service for 19.95 a month and put some fine print about a 40b cap and 2 dollar a GB charges at the bottom? It would send the internet back to 1995.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Liars

said by insomniac84:

said by SpaethCo:

The current pricing is such that competitors can't afford to build out new infrastructure to establish new Internet service and make a profit.
Not true. Municipalities seem to have no problem building it up and making profit.
Really?

»Earthlink Closing Philly Wi-Fi Network June 12 [34] comments

»MetroFi Pulls Out of Municipal Wireless Game [12] comments

»Utah's Utopia Tries To Stay Afloat
said by insomniac84:

Even verizon is replacing their existing network with fiber. So it's incorrect to claim they can't afford it.
Verizon's rollout of FiOS is about one thing: triple play. Both ATT and Verizon realized early on that the TV / Phone / Internet packages are where the real money was to be made and the cable companies had the upper hand. That's been the driving force behind U-Verse and FiOS deployments - keeping the companies viable.
said by insomniac84:

They should have to advertise a flat price, that is the only way to keep everything fair. It's bad enough that they don't include fees and taxes in the advertised price. You want them to advertise a service for 19.95 a month and put some fine print about a 40b cap and 2 dollar a GB charges at the bottom? It would send the internet back to 1995.
It's the fastest way to get capacity expansion. That's why there is so much backbone capacity at the moment: bandwidth at the backbone level is billed based on consumption. You want them to build more capacity? Use more bandwidth.

Right now with the flat pricing structure all you do by consuming more bandwidth is eat away at the profit structure; growing demand only provides motivation for companies to upgrade if the service will degrade to the point that customers will quit.

The simple reality is prices are going to go up one way or another.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: Liars

Muni WiFi != Muni Fiber.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Liars

said by Matt3:

Muni WiFi != Muni Fiber.
You'll note Utopia is on that list of links. That's muni fiber, my friend.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: Liars

said by SpaethCo:

said by Matt3:

Muni WiFi != Muni Fiber.
You'll note Utopia is on that list of links. That's muni fiber, my friend.
Yes, but that was only 1 of 3 of your links and it hasn't failed.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Liars

said by Matt3:

Yes, but that was only 1 of 3 of your links and it hasn't failed.
... yet.

Certainly that they're struggling to meet revenue to support operations doesn't really support the statement that "Municipalities seem to have no problem building it up and making profit."

There are a number of muni-networks that fail because they are only sustainable if they get a 70%+ conversion rate. That's tough for any company to do, no matter how good they are. Even Verizon is only mustering a 25% adoption rate with FiOS, no matter how superior it may be to other offerings.

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84 to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo
Yes, because not profiting as much as they wanted to means they aren't profiting. And to me it was stupid not to also target businesses. You can easily charge them double or more and sell profitable SLAs. They need to focus on all areas and not just undeserved areas. The reasons why an area is undeserved is because people are poor and can't pay for it.

It seems Utopia isn't profiting as much as they want due to them excluding the more profitable areas and customers. If they targeted everyone they wouldn't have a problem.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Liars

said by insomniac84:

Yes, because not profiting as much as they wanted to means they aren't profiting.
It means they aren't making profits at a rate that will allow them to pay back their loans.

With muni-broadband, that means that the tax payers are stuck paying off the business that couldn't cut it. Of course, the federal government has been doing a lot of that lately, so who am I to say that approach is wrong?

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Re: Liars

said by SpaethCo:

said by insomniac84:

Yes, because not profiting as much as they wanted to means they aren't profiting.
It means they aren't making profits at a rate that will allow them to pay back their loans.

With muni-broadband, that means that the tax payers are stuck paying off the business that couldn't cut it. Of course, the federal government has been doing a lot of that lately, so who am I to say that approach is wrong?
It's okay to be anti-muni, but please try and support your arguments with facts rather than assumptions.

Have any muni's failed and dumped the burden on their taxpayers? How many muni operations (non-WiFi) have actually failed ... period? From most of the articles I've read on here over the years, the munis are privately funded and or structured in a way to shield taxpayers. To put it in perspective, for every failed muni, it would be just as easy to dig up two that are so far successful. UTOPIA blazed the trail and luckily, their business model is open for anyone to see. New muni deployments are free to see what worked and what didn't.

In any business, whether government backed or not, there are and will be failures. I think we could easily dig up several public companies that have failed miserably too. The key to muni deployments is to shield taxpayers and require the muni to pay all taxes and fees, just like a private company. Regardless, if a public company won't serve an area and when put to a vote, the populace decides they want to do it themselves, the company who refused to serve the area shouldn't have a say.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Liars

said by Matt3:

It's okay to be anti-muni, but please try and support your arguments with facts rather than assumptions.

Have any muni's failed and dumped the burden on their taxpayers? How many muni operations (non-WiFi) have actually failed ... period?
It depends on how you define failed I guess. In my case I define it as "not succeeding," although you appear to be defining it as "dead."

So let's look at iProvo. They deployed the network using city enterprise funds used to provide self-supporting services like city water & sewer. In mid-2007 the city council added $1.2 million in sales tax revenue to help prop up the shortfall of iProvo to meet its self-sustaining status. By the end of 2007, they had a an additional $850k shortfall which had to be covered by the city general fund. By May of last year, to get out of the business of trying to manage the network the city sold the service to Broadweave for $40.6 million ... sort of. It turns out Broadweave didn't have the cash to actually front the sale, so the city wrote it off as bonds which it retained and allowed Broadweave to pay off the sale in $268k monthly payments, only for the last few months Broadweave hasn't been paying.

Adoption rates are absolutely critical for networks, which is why incumbents fight these projects tooth and nail. As soon as another provider comes in to leech away customers, they're left with the same operational costs of maintain a network that reaches their entire service area with a dwindling revenue left to support it.

Muni-wifi options are definitely cheaper. The Portland muni-Wifi failure only cost the city $60k to take down the now dormant gear.
said by Matt3:

UTOPIA blazed the trail and luckily, their business model is open for anyone to see. New muni deployments are free to see what worked and what didn't.
If Utopia is such a shining star of success, then why are they asking the member cities to come up with another $504 million in sales tax revenue to help keep operations going?
said by Matt3:

In any business, whether government backed or not, there are and will be failures. I think we could easily dig up several public companies that have failed miserably too.
When public companies fail, the investors take the hit. When government-backed services fail, the tax payers are forced to carry the costs. That's the whole point of city projects, in some way or another all of that money is funded through taxes, and taxes are not an optional payment for citizens. Well, I guess they sort of are -- if you don't pay them you always have the option of jailtime.

I agree that it's unfortunate that public telecoms won't provide the service, but usually it's because they actually have a pretty good understanding of what the costs are for operating such a beast and elect not to launch themselves into the money pit.

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84 to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:

It means they aren't making profits at a rate that will allow them to pay back their loans.
No it means they aren't making the meaningful profits after paying off the loans. Of course if they serve business customers that will change fast.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

1 edit

fifty nine

Member

Has to be all or nothing

This "ISPs with more than 2 million subscribers" won't fly. It has to apply to ALL ISPs otherwise the big guys will cry about unfair competition.

Otherwise just keep the status quo.

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

baineschile

Premium Member

Cap or Per Byte

They have to decide if there is going to be a cap with overagres, or just a speed/consumption model.

Either way, these companies that want to meter have more money than any of us, so its probably a lost cause if they have a one track mind.

Either way, I hope everything stays reasonable (250gig comcast cap, i personally think is more than enough), and they evalutate it annually.

Omega
Premium Member
join:2002-07-30
Golden, CO

Omega

Premium Member

Re: Cap or Per Byte

I agree, although I don't like caps, I can tolerate reasonable ones. 250GB/month is reasonable, imo. at least for now. Once HD content becomes more available, they will need to increase the cap.
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO

me1212

Member

Re: Cap or Per Byte

"Once HD content becomes more available, they will need to increase the cap." They won't. That is one of the reason they stared capping. Competition is what we need.

•••
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

sonicmerlin to Omega

Member

to Omega
For the upteenth time, caps DO NOT help manage network congestion. Congestion occurs during times of peak usage, usually in the evening when even the "low usage" users get on Youtube and stream videos.

There are no "reasonable" caps. You will have no idea how little bandwidth costs these ISPs until they are forced to reveal that data. Any consumer toleration of caps is essentially a slippery slope, where "reasonable" is arbitrarily defined by the average uninformed consumer or greedy corporation with little vision for or understanding of the future.

In other countries with advanced internet networks, including Sweden (which has a lower population density than America), there are no caps, nor would any ISP dare instituting a cap lest they lose customers to competitors.

You need to get the idea of "reasonable" caps out of your head. Otherwise you'll end up being the perfect little PR drone for your greedy ISP.

•••
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO
·Google Fiber

me1212

Member

Competition would stop this.

Look at FiOS and cable vision areas. They have good competition CV even added a 101/15 package to keep people from going to FiOS and FiOS is getting new packages out 10/2 to 15/5 and 20/5 to 25/15. But 3 or more ISPs per area would be best IMHO.

"If government is going to get involved, they're better served by taking actions that foster competition. As we've seen with Cablevision and Verizon's reluctance to impose caps or meters, and Time Warner's reluctance to trial meters in FiOS markets, competition is kind of like DEET for dumb, self-serving telecom ideas. The threat of customer defection will keep carriers on their best behavior."

••••••••••••••••••••
tdouglas22
join:2001-09-25
Memphis, TN

tdouglas22

Member

So what do WE need to do to make our voices heard again?

We can't just sit by and let this go through. We have to do something to get it across that this is NOT good for the customers and does nothing to help us. Ideas, anybody? I'm all eyes and ears.

••••••

Broken Back
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
Dallas, TX

Broken Back

Premium Member

Uverse

Your TV Service with ATT just got out of hand with metered billing.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Remember CompuServe?

CompuServe - late 1980s-early 1990s
$6.00/hour at 300 baud
$12.50/hour at 1200/2400 baud

Now they knew how to meter!

Why on Earth would we want to go back to that?

PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

PapaMidnight

Member

Re: Remember CompuServe?

said by funchords:

CompuServe - late 1980s-early 1990s
$6.00/hour at 300 baud
$12.50/hour at 1200/2400 baud

Now they knew how to meter!

Why on Earth would we want to go back to that?
Holy S***... Back in the day. Don't forget how EarthLink and AOL tried to pull the same crap in the early 90's.
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO

me1212 to funchords

Member

to funchords
Cause ISPs can price gouge make more money.
fishacura
join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA

1 recommendation

fishacura

Member

I don't get it...

If my neighbor is downloading 500 GB per month and I am downloading 1GB per month, why shouldn't he/she pay a lot more than I do? What does the carriers cost have to do with anything? What the decide to charge, in a capitalistic system, is based on what the market will bear. People pay markups for everything and if a company drives their price up above the demand, they will fail...simple economics.

What am I missing?

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

spamd
Premium Member
join:2001-04-22
Cherry Valley, IL

spamd

Premium Member

The future of the internet.

Anyone here who thinks that metered billing is not going to happen is in for a rude awakening. History has proven that big business always gets what they want in the end. I expect to see metered billing used by all ISP's in late 2010 if not later that the end of 2011. If you notice that all wireless ISP's all ready do have this in place. Just look at the latest headlines.

»Oh AT&T Tethering 'Sources,' You Taunt Us [58] comments

»gigaom.com/2009/06/18/br ··· by-2011/

»Verizon Unveils Global Broadband 3G Modem [15] comments

»Lawmaker Unveils Anti-Metered Billing Law [119] comments

»Higher Prices, Recession Can't Stop Broadband Growth [45] comments

•••
UncleDirtNap
join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA

UncleDirtNap

Member

The day they move to metered billing...

... is the same day I scrap my broadband connection and go back to dial up.

If everyone else did the same they'd back track in less than a month.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Law Won't pass

This law won't pass. It will be killed at the sounds of the Feds being sued and more money being spent from the tax payers.

The feds don't have the money to take this thing to court. TWC, ATT, Comcast and the others do. Especially when combined. The court will rule Congress does NOT have the power to regulate a private network.

PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

PapaMidnight

Member

Nice Blog Updates

Anyone else notice that their blog hasn't seen a single update since '06?

»www.consumers4choice.org/blog
LurkerLito
join:2004-06-08

LurkerLito

Member

Just wait Grandma!

PR departments fired up their engines as well, AT&T insisting to us that their metered billing trials in Reno and Beaumont, Texas are really about making sure that "grandma" gets a fair shake.
That's a nice thing for grandma to have, just wait the the grand kids come over and give her the first $500 overage charge and let's see how expensive the original $40/month unlimited plan she has now stacks up.

Here is a great idea for stopthecap, just make a short video of a bunch of kids trying to send grandma a video of the family and have the parents stop them and tell the kids, "don't do that cause grandma will have to pay overages to receive it."
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO

me1212

Member

Re: Just wait Grandma!

Sounds like a good idea to me.

mrkevin
Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.
Premium Member
join:2007-08-07
Aurora, ME

mrkevin to LurkerLito

Premium Member

to LurkerLito
wait until grandma's computer gets infected with a worm.

What about IP TV?
amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America

amungus

Premium Member

All your base

Sounds like their dream plan - bill for internet like they did/do w/phone service.

Frak this whole idea of billing per byte/megabyte/gigabyte. Nobody, not even the "grandma" wants this madness.
Market some levels of service that people want, and leave people alone to do what they wish with that connection. They should advertise that "lite" level of service more if that's what they really really think people might like... Notice how NONE of the providers advertise this much aside from the occasional "deal" on DSL which usually leads to a bigger bill than expected (they're always great about screwing up the bill in their favor somehow...)

Biggest argument against these "giant corporations" is this:
-They have steadily increased "speeds" over the years, right?
-They have steadily kept prices reasonable at the same time
-Now they're more and more upset about people using these connections... why?
---Could ISPs have simply KEPT "speeds" at whatever level (think 1.5Mbps DSL or 3Mbps cable) until they were ready for increased usage?

I call this poor planning if they want to argue about it. Every opportunity was there for planning things in a "better" way if they'd wanted to.

Instead, ISPs have continually had:
-a steady stream of money
-spent some of that on upgrades to speed/capacity/buildout/etc. and done PLENTY fine, even with "hogs" on the network. ...And probably still had enough leftover to keep buying more fast cars, boats, whatever else.

This is pure and simple greed. Nothing fancy about it. Pure and simple desire for more and more for themselves at the expense of the many "faithful" customers they've had for years and years.
Heated Man
join:2009-06-18
Cleveland, OH

Heated Man

Member

The photo here

I really wish this site would stop posting photos of this terrorist when discussing stuff on here. It is dis-respectful. Surely you guys are more creative than this?

•••••

Madness
Like a flea circus at a dog show
join:2000-01-05
Lynn, MA

Madness

Member

Better Idea...

How 'bout we just give up the Internet altogether & get out more? Would that make them happy?!! We survived before the Internet, did we not?

Klang
@sbcglobal.net

Klang

Anon

Re: Better Idea...

I'm all for it... except all we'd have left for information sources would be cartoon-images of newspapers, hate radio, and garbage television programming.

DJMASACRE
join:2008-05-27
Nepean, ON

DJMASACRE

Member

aaaaaaaaa

if this was thinking logically, ( which obviously its not )

then they would just leave everything as is, because theres nothing wrong with the current system, except maybe some com nies charging more than others )

by the bit is ridiculous .. then they may as well give us any speeds that we want .. since we would be charged by how much we download anyway , it makes no difference ..

im without words
gorehound
join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

gorehound

Member

Consumption will suck

I will be extremely angry if I am forced to pay some kind of BS consumption billing scheme here in the USA.
And if there is anyone at all who is out there saying they actually support this maybe they would be so kind as to PAY MY BILL !!!

Cause the only way someone will support this is if they either work for one of the shyster companies like Slime Warner or they are a rich yuppie who does not care about their fellow consumer citizens.

FightCaps
@pacbell.net

FightCaps

Anon

Opportunity

Since all the ISP's want to move to charging per byte. There may be a business opportunity for groups to setup neighborhood ISP's. Run a T1/T3 line into a household and let the neighbors connect wireless.
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO

me1212

Member

Re: Opportunity

I was thinking the same thing. The speeds would not be as fast, but no cap/meter ether.

anon101
@comcast.net

anon101

Anon

Re: Opportunity

If you could do simple math you'd understand a T1 has a cap of 350ish GB a month. So a 250 GB cap isn't that bad - its essentially 1 mbit/sec 24/7/30

mang
@yahoo.com

mang

Anon

Grandma.....

My Grandma get's discounted cable/phone/util service because she is a Sr citizen. Just tell grandma to go talk to Social Security for her benefits as a senior.

but for everyone else... let's keep the pricing where it should be 1/2 the fixed rate price of today for the same level of service.

if you flip the switch on the topic and say the customers demand 1/2 the current price for the exact same level of service (Then just stick your fingers in your ears as the lobbyist does his spin) these corp's will need to bow down.

or maybe we can all start a cut the cord of oppression month. Where everyone cancels their service for the same month

Ad revenue will crash, all tech companies will grind to a halt!

duder
@rr.com

duder

Anon

say goodbye

say goodbye and don't give in to this crap anymore to hell with the internet getting like looking at crap tv to night i blow up my computer and give it all up life is to short for this shit any more what are we drug addicts no internet addicts we pay to much now for this crap

no more ..................
page: 1 · 2 · next