Defining Gluttony → NEW Tier Limits

Just some info for ya'... Cox IS listing monthly limits in their product descriptions here in Las Vegas; this appeared as of Nov. 1st when they began offering tiered service here. (And even the highest level offered doesn't give us 30 gig/month.)

_________________________________________________
3Mb Service

Service Rate Leasing Modem without Basic Service
$69.99

Preferred Svc Customer Rate* with Modem Lease
$59.99

Service Rate with Modem Purchase** without Basic Service
$59.99

Preferred Svc Customer Rate* with Modem Purchase**
$49.99

Downstream
3 Mbps***

Upstream
256 kbps***

Number of Email addresses
7

Number of Computers
1

Each additional computer connected at this speed
$4.95/mo

Maximum of 3 computers

For non-commercial use (15 Gigabyte transfer limit per month.)

________________________________________________________
1.5Mb Service

Service Rate Leasing Modem without Basic Service
$59.99

Preferred Svc Customer Rate* with Modem Lease
$49.99

Service Rate with Modem Purchase** without Basic Service
$49.99

Preferred Svc Customer Rate* with Modem Purchase**
$39.99

Downstream
1.5 Mbps***

Upstream
128 kbps***

Number of Email addresses
5

Number of Computers
1

Each additional computer connected at this speed
$4.95/mo

Maximum of 3 computers

For non-commercial use (7.5 Gigabyte transfer limit per month.)

__________________________________________________________
128Kb Service

Service Rate Leasing Modem without Basic Service
$49.99

Preferred Svc Customer Rate* with Modem Lease
$39.99

Service Rate with Modem Purchase** without Basic Service
$39.99

Preferred Svc Customer Rate* with Modem Purchase**
$29.99

Downstream
128 kbps***

Upstream
128 kbps***

Number of Email addresses
3

Number of Computers
1

For non-commercial use (1.7 Gigabyte transfer limit per month.)

I hope the lawsuits begin. Once you are paying for "usage" and have caps, I can't WAIT for the lawsuits about SPAM, Popups, Garbage Flash, etc

There is *no way* I'm going to PAY for content I don't want to be rammed down my throat.

As soon as you do have to pay a lot extra for it, in a metered format or capped limit, that means in Court you can instantly show the "Damage" in monetary terms that the unwanted 'content' is causing you. When you can show damage, then you can get awards. Period.

This will nuke the Internet. Hopefully the nukes will slam into the greedy monopolies and burn them down.

said by COMMAN:

---

Cox IS listing monthly limits in their product descriptions here in Las Vegas; this appeared as of Nov. 1st when they began offering tiered service here.

---

Metered services weren't popular when people used dialup (just ask Compuserve and AOL). People in this country for the most part aren't going to use broadband if they have to worry about some cha-ching sound going off in the background every 5 seconds. When people start getting the bills for hitting these limits, you'll most likely see massive customer defections. This will be true especially of dialup customers who just want to "try out" broadband.

said by pnh102:

---

Metered services weren't popular when people used dialup (just ask Compuserve and AOL). People in this country for the most part aren't going to use broadband if they have to worry about some cha-ching sound going off in the background every 5 seconds. When people start getting the bills for hitting these limits, you'll most likely see massive customer defections. This will be true especially of dialup customers who just want to "try out" broadband.

---

Unfortunately, customers may ultimately have no choice but to accept metered services. Flat-rate access plans were feasible on dialup infrastructures because service providers could oversubscribe those infrastructures without significantly degrading the perceived quality of service; the standard ratio used by most ISPs has traditionally been 10:1 users to modems.

Broadband alters that paradigm. It is vastly more difficult for an ISP to oversubscribe the infrastructure without degradation of services with broadband than it used to be with dialup. Without oversubscription, the ISP has a very narrow customer base across which to recover the costs of building and maintaining the infrastructure--which creates upward pressure on prices.

Broadband is not dialup. It is not rational to expect business (and pricing) models based on dialup infrastructures to support broadband as well.

said by pkust:

---

Broadband alters that paradigm.

---

You're certainly correct here, but I don't think customers will care about the technological aspects of this. Most non-tech users see broadband as a product, something they either pay a fixed amount for or a variable amount for. Many already have dialup, and they are accustomed to paying a fixed amount for that.

Metered dialup went away because customers weren't willing to pay for it (the original DIVX, Compuserve, and old AOL provide good examples of this, and even software "subscriptions" aren't selling too well with the public either), even though it did make sense from a technological perspective to bill customers which were connected to the system for longer periods of time more money than customers who were not.

Given how lukewarmly broadband has been received by the masses in the USA, any kind of metered pricing will scare away newer customers, especially those who see cost as an obstacle. They want to know exactly what they are paying, and not have to worry about "hidden" fees and other charges like that.

In the end, Cox will end up shooting itself in the groin with this policy, so many customers will give up on their broadband service that they will end up with a huge stranded investment which will bring them no money.

how will cox know how many computers you have. Are they saying that if you hook up your cable to a router, you a violating the agreement and could be taken to court?

I hate metered services, I thought they were pretty much going to be gone. It will not last though, there is too many options in populated areas with broadband, and people will just goto another. What is the point of getting boradband with limits if one of the reasons why people get broadband is for the faster speeds?

said by Omega:

---

how will cox know how many computers you have. Are they saying that if you hook up your cable to a router, you a violating the agreement and could be taken to court?

---

No, they specifically say they DO accept the use of routers, they just don't support them (i.e. don't call COX tech support). If you use one, you better know how to config, troubleshoot, etc. yourself.

Their claim is for the TOTAL bandwidth used by ALL computers on your connection, not how many computers are in use.

said by pnh102:

---

said by pkust:

---

Broadband alters that paradigm.

---

You're certainly correct here, but I don't think customers will care about the technological aspects of this. Most non-tech users see broadband as a product, something they either pay a fixed amount for or a variable amount for. Many already have dialup, and they are accustomed to paying a fixed amount for that.

Metered dialup went away because customers weren't willing to pay for it (the original DIVX, Compuserve, and old AOL provide good examples of this, and even software "subscriptions" aren't selling too well with the public either), even though it did make sense from a technological perspective to bill customers which were connected to the system for longer periods of time more money than customers who were not.

---

Metered dialup went away in part because it was feasible for ISPs to implement a pricing/oversubscription model that was not dependent on usage. Oversubscription worked because people were not connected 24x7--since the majority of an ISPs customer base was not online at any given moment, ISPs had a significant window in which they could oversell the infrastructure without customers detecting degradation in the quality of service.

With broadband, however, more people are staying connected 24x7 (or very close to it). As people use their connections more intensively, the window in which an ISP can oversell the infrastructure shrinks. This reduces the size of the customer base across which an ISP can recover the costs of the infrastructure (assuming quality of service remains constant), which in turn leaves the ISP with only two choices: raise prices or accept degradation in the quality of services as users supersaturate the infrastructure.

Neither alternative is likely to be attractive to customers, of course, who quite rationally want low prices and high quality of service.

The net effect of these forces is that oversubscription models are not likely to remain economically viable for ISPs, for the simple reason that they are not likely to be able to oversubscribe sufficiently to satisfy the customers' demands for low price and high quality.

If a customer is asked to choose between metered service and flat-rate service, the rational choice for the customer is flat-rate. However, the choice the customer is likely to be asked to make is between metered service and no service at all.

said by pkust:

---

However, the choice the customer is likely to be asked to make is between metered service and no service at all.

---

Customers choosing to have no broadband service (especially if they are coming from dialup) is most likely going to be what happens, regardless of the valid points made by the ISP. The market always rules in this regard.