dslreports logo
 story category
Wednesday Morning Links
view:
topics flat nest 
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 recommendation

rradina

Member

ATT and VZ Data Caps

On the contrary, usage caps "encourage all users to make efficient use of finite network resources," Verizon argued. (In fact, a government survey of Internet service providers found that congestion is not a problem for wireline ISPs, but usage-based pricing can boost revenue.)

Usage-based pricing “provides a way for consumers who are not heavy users to keep their costs down” and “increases incentives to invest in broadband networks,” Verizon further wrote.
Where are these "cheap plans" that allow us to control data costs?

davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

davidc502

Member

Say no to data caps!

This isn't the 1990's anymore, where we have to worry about your neighbor(s) using up a lot of the available bandwidth. Network technologies have grown to the point where those type of problems are a thing of the past (in most situations). Charging customers extra for data usage is frankly just a cash cow for ISP's -- a way to boost revenue.

When we go to Subway, and ask for extra Olives or Banana peppers, they do it without charging. Why? A fellow co-worker who used to own 2 subways said --- It all averages out in the end. Some People use more and some use less, so it averages in the long run. He sold those franchises for a profit, and without charging people because they used more.

It's the same concept with internet usage excepts bits and bytes aren't like a physical Olive or Pepper. Bit's and Bytes really don't cost the ISP anymore than what it cost to send the signals (almost nothing). Charging people because X amount of bytes has crossed the wire is just short of highway robbery, and should be a BANNED practice.

My 2ยข
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: Say no to data caps!

said by davidc502:

Charging customers extra for data usage is frankly just a cash cow for ISP's -- a way to boost revenue.

Is that really true? How many customers exceed their data limits and pay extra? I have no statistics but the folks I know are aware of their limit and they don't exceed it because the penalties are high. If few exceed the limit, the reason for the limit seems to be other than generating revenue.

According to the article Verizon doesn't have data limits even though they claim it's a way for low usage customers to "keep their costs down". No limit means there's no difference between low and high usage. If low usage customers are not rewarded, how do they control their costs?

According to the article ATT does have limits with defined financial penalties but they seldom enforce them. This doesn't sound like a plan to generate revenue.

Perhaps Verizon is referencing wireless plans but I thought the context of the article was wired HSI.

Kuro
@75.151.50.x

Kuro

Anon

Re: Say no to data caps!

said by rradina:

How many customers exceed their data limits and pay extra?

Something like that is not a fair question to ask after the caps exists. Got some new neighbors last year that came from a capless Comcast area to capped Nashville and had no idea that it was capped. With a Netflix account, PSN/XBLA and Amazon Prime and normal traffic for 4 people they hit that 300 GB cap hard. They got screwed the first couple of months and used up their 3 free strikes quickly. After about 6 months they finally got the hang of it and are under the limit. But are they under the cap because they normally would be and just had a few months where they needed more data or are they under it only because its the only choice without having to pay more.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: Say no to data caps!

Not a fair question to ask? You demonstrate a situation that supports my assertion that it doesn't generate revenue.

Kuro
@75.151.50.x

Kuro

Anon

Re: Say no to data caps!

Meant for it to show that who is a data hog and who isn't is not fair to measure against on capped data. Also Comcast did get extra money for a few months while they were adjusting.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: Say no to data caps!

I don't consider that a sustainable revenue strategy. It's penalty revenue that isn't sustainable and creates customer ill-will. Organizations that operate under normal market conditions wouldn't adopt that kind of revenue strategy. In fact, they would welcome additional usage and encourage it by making a better value for folks to get a bigger fix (i.e. pay $20/month more and get 1TB cap...or whatever...) According to Comcast's web site, their caps are fixed regardless of what consumer plan you buy. While some have suggested a higher-priced but slower uncapped business plan can be purchased, that too is a distorted strategy.

If someone wants 300Mbps and a 1TB cap, normal market forces suggest someone would sell that plan -- especially when the start-up costs between 50Mbps service with a 300GB cap and 300Mbps service and a 1TB cap are identical and the difference in operational costs are negligible. In fact, Comcast could probably throw up a web site and let the customer choose the whatever speed and quantity of monthly data they want. But they don't do that because their market is distorted. There's no cause and effect pressures on almost any strategy they employ.

buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Dover, NH
(Software) Sophos UTM Home Edition
Ruckus R310

1 recommendation

buzz_4_20

Member

The death of cellular (and the common carrier?)

What a load in this article.

People use WiFi on their phones as much as possible because data charges are ABSURDLY HIGH.

It's not about preference for technology or being anti cellular it's about what costs more money.

IE: I get 500mb on my phone a month (woot PagePlus) but I use 10-20gigs a month total.
WHY... because I pay for internet at my house that is unmetered. There is wifi at work also unmetered.

I'm not going to pay the outrageous data rates when I already have access to cheaper data... that's it.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

Re: The death of cellular (and the common carrier?)

While I agree mostly there are some cases where wi-fi is much better than the cellular signal even if caps didn't exist