Per-Byte Broadband Billing Is Neither Necessary Nor Inevitable

that has already happened.

are you talking about their wireless network or their dsl/uverse networks? I have never had my dsl connection get bogged down by anyone but myself. I always have at least 85% of the advertised speed and my latency is great.

i think that nonymous forgot to put in the (sarcasm) (/sarcasm) tags.

I wasn't aware that companies like Disney, Viacom, and NBC/Universal were pushing for per-byte billing?

The MSOs and Telcos are just middle men when it comes to TV -- whether it's delivered through traditional QAM channel delivery or delivered via IP packets, these companies are just transporting content from producers to end users. The MSOs are stuck buying the groupings that the content producers are willing to sell -- that's why every PayTV provider's channel package is almost identical.

Good point. Thanks.

The problem is the cell phone companies build the network, they do not pay per byte so it makes no sense to charge customers per byte.

Paying per byte does not allow more users since everyone can still flood the network at the same time.
The only benefit for paying per byte is the company makes more money.
There is no benefit to customers who now have to pay more for usage.

Also, do not forget that per byte billing is crazy since you have no control over the size of the websites you go to and then you can't use any streaming services like radio (xm), tv (hulu), or streaming movies (netflix).

If it is up to customers they will never charge per byte.

would be greatly increased use and effectiveness of adblocking software for web browsers, be it Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, or Opera. No one wants to pay extra to see stupid ads. The advertisers would not like that, but if we have to specifically pay for advertising on a per bit basis, I'd do everything I could to avoid getting ads in the first place. People that make adons that block ads would get a big increase in business.

quote:

---

The only benefit for paying per byte is the company makes more money.
There is no benefit to customers who now have to pay more for usage.

---

Of course the only benefit to per byte is more money for the company - kinda the reason it is in business.

If they price unlimited high enough to make a good amount more while people perceive the value is worth it - then it will be done.

So far - I have yet to see a company have all, or even a majority, of its customers leave when per byte billing has been implemented. As such - it won't be going away soon. Prices are very rarely solely up to the customer.

Yes, but as we've seen, over and over, "unlimited" is rarely unlimited in the sense that most people understand the term to mean.

Customers can't leave because most ISPs are monopolies and they work together with competitors to be able to charge more.

I would be perfectly happy with per byte billing so long as the meter starts at $0.00 and then measures my usage. I have no interest in measured rates in addition to my flat rate.

How long you been using the internet?

Back in the mid 90s, most ISPs were charging for connect time (not bytes). Any time one or more ISPs in the area offered an unlimited connect time, people BAILED on the connect time chargers.

Then again, people used to have quite a few choices of providers in many markets. Now? There's mostly, at best, duopolies. People *can't* bail. And, even if they can, it makes no sense to do so because the two "competitors" have pretty much the same rate structures in place.

So, yeah, with the markets the way they are, now, you won't see much migration when a company does something egregious. Doesn't mean customers wouldn't leave if they had other, real options.

Try to get the local DA with aspirations to higher office to do racketeering investigations?

The point that the article tries to make is that, people are going to tend to cut back on their usage in a metered environment. While this reduces network load, it will also make it so that income projections based on current usage levels will be pointless. It will also make forecastable revenues impossible (something that investors HATE). It will also incur significant cost structures in managing a fluid billing system and providing the resources necessary for customers to manage their usage in an informed fashion.

And, yes, if customers are not given the tools to regulate their own use, then it is a bit unjustified to expect people to be liable for overages.

I cannot argue with your logic, it's a want not a need, but it's a want I wouldn't give up, per byte billing would change the way I use the internet and reduce my usage based on the caps but, Netflix was only one example of why I need broadband that's faster than dsl, and the most obvious. I wouldn't want to be on 1.5mb/s anymore after being used to 30/5 from cablevision. I should be ok for awhile cablevision has said they don't like the per-byte billing model.

but the reality is that the amount of people who would disconnect would not be enough to change the companies decision, the only reason time warner backed off was because of competition, if the entire industry moves at once, even in just a geographic area, we're stuck.

???Isn't that kind of redundant? I know you need to try to come up with a "long enough" list, but still...

At any rate... I know that I would be effected and I don't fall into the "low income"/"low min wage workers" group. Why? Because I telecommute. There's quite a bit of bandwidth such activities chew up. If doing so becomes too expensive, then I'll just switch back to driving to work.

Hmm... Perhaps the HSI services could be blocked on this based on environmental impact...Not, *quite* accurate. You assume that the "rich spoiled brats" are heavy enough users to be effected. Seems a dubious supposition at best.

Of those that actually do use enough, they'll still be effected, it's just that it will have a lower relative impact.Care to be more incoherent?

This is one of the reasons that broadband and wireless data is lagging behind backbone infrastructure. At the carrier level you pay by commit level and 95th percentile utilization, or you pay full circuit unmetered rates. Usage-based pricing at the carrier level created a system by which escalating usage created increasing levels of cash flow which provided the necessary funding to rapidly build to meet demand.

Flat, fixed-rate pricing provides you with consistent income, but your upgrade cycles are fixed -- you don't have a rapid inflow of cash should demand outpace predicted growth, and the opportunity to fall short is ever present.That's a scare tactic that's frequently thrown out, but it's not true at all. People are using these services today and ISPs are paying their upstream network providers based on usage. The cost of electricity didn't stop people from buying more electrical appliances; if a technology has merit it will still be used.

So, uhh, how did disabled people manage to survive, mentally, ten years ago?

Your argument is weak, at best.

That's because there was more money to be made selling "unlimited" services at $19.95 to the average person rather than billing the average subscriber $9/mo in usage charges. Sure, there are people that spent well above that, but the average subscriber paid much more under flat rate billing than they would otherwise.

Peace of mind is a lucrative business. Just look at all the money companies make selling "extended warranties." For every 1 person that comes out well ahead there are at least 100 people that lose money in the interest of "financial safety."

cmon

Do you really think a Home Cable modem connection could be worth any more than an absolute MAXIMUM of say $300 per month?

(not that I agree with any over charges)

Do what I did, start your own ISP with no bill-per-byte. The only problem though is that people with that kind of knowledge don't want to drop out of a $200/hour jobs to do it; too much of a pay cut for them.

bandwidth limits is. That is the way the ISPs are going - multiple tiers with different bandwidth limits.

Simple, and provides additional income from higher level users while being affordable to lower level users.

Yeah. Well, the landscape could change again by the time anyone needs to make any decision as to stay or go (somewhere else) or drop service entirely. I'll keep on awaitin' for that "free" (ad-sponsored) white spaces broadband from... whomever (Google? doubtful)... just kiddin'... maybe. I'm on 30/5 now, but I could easily drop back to a tenth of that--there are plenty of other options for everything for which I use broadband (as well as simply altering my usage patterns), so it's only a convenience factor (except for that whole extortion thing). As you say, everyone makes their own priorities, and that's fine.

This is not a logical method. There needs to be be a minimal flat rate for your connection and a metered rate for the USE of the connection. No matter how much or little you use, there is still a cost for the ability to use the connection that you need to pay. When the metered (or capped) plans are talked about, the fixed and variable costs are commingled to mess up the analysis. The poster up-thread who asked for a rebate or roll-over for under use has the right idea in the commingled method. You are paying the fixed fee and a lump sum for the first x units of use. Thus if you do not use all of your paid for usage it SHOULD be rolled over to the next period (with periodic rebates that wipe out the rolled-over credits but charging you just the base fixed fee for the month).

If you look at the prices for having both Cable TV and Internet you will find that you are giving a $5-10 discount for having both. This means that by their own prices the fixed cost of that connection (with no use) is the $5-10. Thus you should be required to pay this amount JUST TO be able to use the internet and then get billed extra for your usage.

To use an analogy look at your car. You pay a registration fee (Fixed Cost) on the car for having a car to drive. You then pay a variable fee (based on how far you drive it and your cars MPG) when you buy gas for the car.

It's simple if all I can do is basic web browsing then I don't need 20 Mbps. So I'll bump it down to 1 Mbps and my ISP can lose $600 a year. If just 1% does that then my ISP( Charter ) would lose $24 million a year. Which is a lot for them. So no I don't think they'll go bill by the byte. So yes even with "no other options" people can do things to show displeasure.

hes another issue. What if the ISP has a crappy network, so your dropping packets that count toward your per/byte and then you have to retransmit the same info, doubling your usage for that packet

Change ISPs.

And, just like they did with TV programming, the basic tier got a huge price increase and a bunch of channels were added to justify it, and now there is no longer an option for a simple, low-cost solution for cable TV viewing. What we will end up with is something like a 50/5 package for everyone, with a high starting base cost, ridiculous overage charges, and even higher priced per-byte tiers for anyone in the above average usage camp. There is no price competition, for the most part, and these conglomerates have focused their efforts on a quasi-contest over features.

It's going to be a tough fight for us, and we are going to need some honest, caring people at the top to help. Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult for honest, caring people to make it to the top.

True and this is when consumer protection should kick in. Will it? We'll see!

Pretty much. See a month is a finite period of time. So with a 15mbit connection, at an overestimate of 10 cents a gigabyte, you would pay a max of 475 dollars a month. If you use a more reasonable cost of 1 cent a gigabyte it only costs a max of $47.50.

But ISPs don't buy metered bandwidth from anyone. They just buy bulk symmetric connections. So there is no real cost per gigabyte anywhere in the system. It's just invented. There is no real cost per usage.

That is why fixed cost lines make sense. As bandwidth has nothing to do with the cost. The cost is the wires and the equipment connecting the wires and the maintenance. These are the same for everyone no matter how much they use.

The govt is supposed to be out "pro-people" advocate. Basically our lobbyist. They've kind of failed on that.