Billed By The Byte - Is it an innovation killer?

Billed By The Byte - Is it an innovation killer?
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

Billed By The Byte
Is it an innovation killer?
(old news - 02:50PM Thursday Sep 13 2007)
tags: business · bandwidth

Yesterday, we discussed how some operators would like nothing more than to ditch the current flat-rate billing system and bill you by the byte. The oversubscription model the industry is built on doesn't take kindly to the power user, who makes up a small percentage of an ISP's user base but consumes the majority of its bandwidth.

Metered billing is often the suggested solution. Outraged by Comcast caps? Wireless trade group the CTIA says that metered pricing is the answer. Tired of users freeloading off of your unsecured hotspot? The Technology Liberation Army blog says metered pricing is the answer (they have advocated metered billing for a few years now).

Mike Masnick over at Techdirt is having none of it, arguing that in addition to increased networking, support and billing headaches for ISPs, metered billing would throttle innovation by creating legions of users who are overly cautious about what kind of new bandwidth intensive services they're eager to try out.

ISPs have clearly found other ways of increasing revenue if they're really worried about financing network upgrades to handle "bandwidth hogs": advertising via webmail, BVAS, selling your clickstream data, fiddling with DNS functionality or charging to get around spam filters -- all while finding new and innovative ways to deliver less bandwidth (traffic shaping, caps). Do we really need to be billed by the megabyte as well?

ISPs Fear Monster 40Gbps DDoS Attacks

Ultra-Mobile-Broadband (UMB) Officially Dead

DSL's Not Dead Yet

Comcast DOCSIS 3.0 Hits Pacific Northwest In December

Martin, Comcast, Continue Lover's Feud

AT&T Front Group Claims Internet End Is Nigh

Virgin Announces In-Flight Broadband Deployment

Buckeye Cablesystem Launching 20Mbps Tier

Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
S_engineer @ 13th Sep 02:56PM:
its almost time...

to dump my cable, cell phone, and HSI!

Maybe I'll get to relax then....but what would I do with the extra money?
--
Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset!
reply

jgkolt @ 13th Sep 02:56PM:
Tired of users freeloading off of your unsecured hotspot?

Tired of users freeloading off of your unsecured hotspot?

how does metered help that.that will only increase with metered isps

This will hold back legitimate innovation while encourage illegitimate innovation (viruses, spam, etc)
reply

S_engineer @ 13th Sep 02:59PM:
Re: Tired of users freeloading off of your unsecured hotspot?

It really doesen't matter what they decide, just know that your bill will be going up!
--
Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset!
reply

morbo @ 13th Sep 03:02PM:
as long as there is no minimum....

i wouldn't go for this, BUT if there was no minimum think of the old people in your life that could then have high speed connection and pay as little as $1/month for dsl. of course, industry folks don't have that in mind. just having you pay more for what you already get for a set price.
reply

KoolMoe @ 13th Sep 03:07PM:
Re: as long as there is no minimum....

You know there would be a minimum billing rate, like for POTS. This wouldn't save anyone money. Maybe prices would come down a little to help sell the idea, but per/byte would hugely expand user's bills.
Look at the iPhone problems when folks don't realize it's communicating - multi-thousand dollar bills. Will ISPs really want to handle the irate users?

If we had true competition, I'd be all for some ISPs trying this per-byte method, as I predict the ISPs that don't so it would gain a huge following. BUT, since we have very little BB competition, once this is 'standard', I doubt anyone won't do it.

Ultimately, I'm against it until an ISP can absolutely guarantee me I won't be billed for any byte I don't specifically request. Don't like your neighbor? Send him a several hi-rez JPGs and listen to him scream when he gets his next ISP bill.

Way too many ways this would cause problems, although I do certainly see the point of pay for what you use (like most utilities).
KM
reply

S_engineer @ 13th Sep 03:11PM:
Re: as long as there is no minimum....

The people that would love this the most are the RIAA and MPAA. Kids, and adults, would curtail their piracy if they were truly paying for the product.
The thought of this however sets a very bad precedent!
--
Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset!
reply

plat2on1 @ 13th Sep 03:15PM:
Re: as long as there is no minimum....

there would have to be a minimum, bandwidth isn't an ISP's only cost
reply

wifi4milez @ 13th Sep 03:16PM:
Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

The ISP's should continue to offer standard, flat rate service. However, they should also offer a cheaper metered rate "option" to those who want it. Furthermore, they should automatically force/switch over any user who goes beyond the normal caps to the metered tier. This would give people with normal usage the ability to use the internet without issue, and would force the bandwidth hogs to pay by the byte. People with very low usage could also opt for the metered plan to save money each month. Its a win-win situation in my opinion.
--
я люблю Денди!
reply

mpelle4456 @ 13th Sep 03:22PM:
Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

...because it would stifle the development of new technology and prevent many of the most exciting prospective uses of the internet - like HD movie downloads and videophones and software delivery.

Metered billing is an insidious threat, in its own way, just as critical as Net Neutrality.

The Internet is fast on its way to becoming the most essential home utility - just as important as your lights or water or sewer. Soon all content - HD video, data and VoIP will come over one pipe.

When I hear assinine ideas like metered billing being tossed about, it only drives home the conclusion that Internet access is way to critical to leave in the hands of greedy private corporations.

How would it be if your electrical utility cut you off for over consumption? Or your sewer? (you crap too much!).

What we need is municipal broadband. Everywhere. Un-metered, un-filtered, and unlimited.
--
He who hesitates is lost.

My Blog

reply

texans20 @ 13th Sep 03:23PM:
Profits

These companies are entitled to make a profit, and I think getting rid of flat-rate billing is one option. The broadband providers could do what the cell phone companies do, give you a big chunk per month and you pay the overage.

Hell, they could take it one step further and give people unlimited "off-peak" and I think that would benefit all parties. The person pirating off torrent/usenet could set the software to transfer only during off-peak times, and during peak usage Average Joe's youtube video will stream great. Joe never goes over because simply browsing the net, streaming music/movies, and checking email wouldn't be bandwidth intensive enough to go over the allotted "peak" GBs per month. Usenet pirate might have to wait a few hours to download that new porn DVD, but if he starts the download during the off-peak time he won't be charged with 4.5GB.

Any other constructive ideas?
--
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.
reply

Joe12345678 @ 13th Sep 03:24PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

Not when we have big system updates that have to be download all the time. Vista sp1 may max out at 1gb. Also M$ killed off auto patcher so we not need to download the update on each system useing auto update / Microsoft update or set up a WSUS sever with is to much for a few system in a home And is just for you OS. Games and other apps now days have lots of big updates that you also need to download.

So this may push people to hold off on updates to keep under there bandwidth limits.
reply

TechieZero @ 13th Sep 03:28PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

said by mpelle4456 :

...What we need is municipal broadband. Everywhere. Un-metered, un-filtered, and unlimited.

Yeah? Who's paying for that? You? I don't want to pay for everyone's luxury.
reply

texans20 @ 13th Sep 03:28PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

said by mpelle4456 :

The Internet is fast on its way to becoming the most essential home utility - just as important as your lights or water or sewer.

You pay to use electric, and you pay to use water. While it would be nice to have the AC set at 71 all summer, most people don't do that to save money. Imagine if everyone paid a flat-rate for electric. Instead of you paying for what you use, the electric company divides the total electric bill by all the houses. Your bill would skyrocket! Why? Well first, there would be waste. People wouldn't worry about turning off lights, people would run their AC or heaters as hot or as cold as they want. Second, you would subsidize the heavy user.

Un-metered, un-filtered, unlimited internet for everyone in America would be very, very costly. Grandma checking her hotmail account would pay as much as that asshole who downloads over 100G a month in "Linux Distros", and that's not fair. Just like it wouldn't be fair for somebody living in a modest two bedroom home to pay the same electric bill as somebody living in a 7 bedroom big luxury home with a hot tub, theater room, and heated swimming pool.
reply

RayW @ 13th Sep 03:29PM:
I like the way Xmission does it

Quote : "100 GB (combined up and down) of datatransfer in any 4 week period. Please note that bandwidth usage is only metered on weekdays, from 7 a.m. - midnight. If necessary, additional bandwidth can be purchased." Several years ago the limit was 10 up/10 down, so as they get better prices we get better service. Oh, and since I started with them on DSL, I think it was 5 years ago, I think the monthly bill has gone up about $2 a month but with the new 1 year plan I am now cheaper than when I started. (Qwest has actually come down for the access line too, surprisingly enough.)

Oh, and you can share your usage if you want, at least when I asked about it two years ago it was ok and the web page does not say different.

Even with a teenager who is heavy into anima and playstation music downloads, a weather web page, my gaming, and M$ updates, we do not get anywhere near the 100 GB.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.
reply

jjoshua @ 13th Sep 03:30PM:
So now I can pay twice...

I can pay once for the speed tier and again for the actual data. No thanks.

Who is going to pay for the continuous script kiddie activity hitting my firewall day and night? Not me.
reply

antdude @ 13th Sep 03:33PM:
Re: its almost time...

said by S_engineer :

to dump my cable, cell phone, and HSI!

Maybe I'll get to relax then....but what would I do with the extra money?

Savings. :)
reply

TechieZero @ 13th Sep 03:35PM:
Who Cares...Again...

Like I wrote yesterday...who cares? It's their business, and network, and they can run it anyway they want as long as they do it legally. Any thing else is talking out of our a--. The consumer will eventually decide who is more sucessfull at it.
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 03:37PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

said by mpelle4456 :

The Internet is fast on its way to becoming the most essential home utility - just as important as your lights or water or sewer. Soon all content - HD video, data and VoIP will come over one pipe.

You do realize that those "essential" utilities are metered right?

said by mpelle4456 :

How would it be if your electrical utility cut you off for over consumption? Or your sewer? (you crap too much!).

You aren't going to get cut-off from any of those services. The point of metering bandwidth is that you won't get cut-off either (like you might now with ISPs that cap and/or throttle traffic), but you will pay more just like you do with your electricity and water.

said by mpelle4456 :

What we need is municipal broadband. Everywhere. Un-metered, un-filtered, and unlimited.

Not with my tax dollars you don't.
reply

jp @ 13th Sep 03:37PM:
Unintended Consequences

There would be a lot of unintended consequences with a bill-by-the-byte scheme. Two quick examples - I don't currently block ads - but if I have to pay for the bandwidth to display that ad, you can be sure I would block all ads. I think the gaming industry would suffer as well - Both for companies like Steam with its on-line downloads, and my own gaming habits with MMOGs.

Better to find a narrow-beam solution for those using "too much" bandwidth rather then the nuke option that hits all users.
--
All that is gold does not glitter Simplycomp Solutions
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 03:43PM:
Re: Profits

said by texans20 :

Any other constructive ideas?

The ISPs should bill like they are being billed if they want to make/save money. For example, when you lease space at a data center there are two common methods to pay for bandwidth usage; set amount of GB/mth + overage fees, and the 95th percentile (or an equivalent). What's even better is that you can have 100 Mbps or 1 Gbps connection and use it for whatever you are will to pay for. If people in this country really want 100 Mpbs synchronous connections, this is how to get there IMO. Fee for service, bill for usage. It works for other "utilities" why can't it work for broadband?
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 03:50PM:
Re: So now I can pay twice...

said by jjoshua :

I can pay once for the speed tier and again for the actual data. No thanks.

I would propose that the "speed tiers" go away and that you have a basic access fee and then be billed for usage.

said by jjoshua :

Who is going to pay for the continuous script kiddie activity hitting my firewall day and night? Not me.

You already are through your monthly bill. Besides, it would have to be on hell of a script kiddie to generate sufficient traffic bouncing up against your firewall to become an issue.
reply

Corehhi @ 13th Sep 03:53PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

said by TechieZero :

said by mpelle4456 :

...What we need is municipal broadband. Everywhere. Un-metered, un-filtered, and unlimited.

Yeah? Who's paying for that? You? I don't want to pay for everyone's luxury.

You know when the gov't gets involved they're so good at business that costs always go down.
reply

anon @ 13th Sep 03:57PM:
Re: So now I can pay twice...

said by jjoshua :

I can pay once for the speed tier and again for the actual data. No thanks.

Who is going to pay for the continuous script kiddie activity hitting my firewall day and night? Not me.

BINGO!....until they can prove that the activity on my IP is caused by me, and not some outside source constantly hammering my IP (by mistake OR design), they cannot realistically expect to run as a metered service. Example: I have Nextel, and kept getting unsolicited text messages (ADS!!) that I would have had to pay for since I didn't have a text message plan in place. (I have no use for it..really..) I told them to turn TEXT messaging off, and they said they could, but I would also lose voice-mail as a result (they said they were tied together, I think they were lying, but had no proof). What a clever way to sell a data plan....bill customer for unsolicited text messages, and then tell them to either buy a data plan, or lose voice-mail to keep from getting billed for the messages. Something similar could wind up happening to 'metered' HSI...."Well, since you seem to be getting a lot of incoming traffic, why don't you buy our higher-priced tier?"
reply

swhx7 @ 13th Sep 03:55PM:
Re: Who Cares...Again...

said by TechieZero :

It's their business, and network, and they can run it anyway they want as long as they do it legally.

That's exactly the problem. As long as it's not feasible to run more wires to the end users, the "last mile" should be a public utility with providers given access on a competitive basis.

said by TechieZero :

The consumer will eventually decide who is more sucessfull at it.

Not unless we someday start having real competition. Almost everywhere in the USA today, the only broadband alternatives are one cable company and one telephone company, and in many places only one or the other.

As long as they have oligopolies, they will squeeze the customers instead of improving infrastructure. In countries where there is regulation to make public interest superior to private profit (e.g. Japan, Scandinavia), they have big bandwidth, low prices and competition to please the customers.
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 03:55PM:
Re: Unintended Consequences

said by jp :

Better to find a narrow-beam solution for those using "too much" bandwidth rather then the nuke option that hits all users.

Who's to say that a bill for usage scenario would affect any of the "normal" users? If usage plans are designed based around the normal user (which is how I would do it), then a large majority of people wouldn't be paying overages above what they currently pay for service. OTOH, those using closer to terabytes, instead of gigabytes, of transfer a month would be the ones paying "overage" fees...nuking the customers that need to be nuked.
reply

anon @ 13th Sep 04:31PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

Yeah it's typical for metered pricing to be higher than reasonable... especially for wireless data.

$5 per megabyte.

Download 1GB in Windows Updates, that'll only cost you $5000.

DSL ISPs that have metered plans are usually more like $10 per gigabyte with a base price of say $20... so that 1GB of Windows Updates comes to $30... but if you have 3 machines: $50 plus whatever other bandwidth you use. Many users would regularly see bills over $100 for something that used to cost $30-40... and even grandma would incur extra costs because of updates, etc. that she doesn't even know is happening... which brings up botnets... so the power users would pay a lot because they are actively using the net, and the clueless users would pay a lot because THE NET is actively using THEM.
reply

Corehhi @ 13th Sep 03:57PM:
Re: Profits

said by openbox9 :

said by texans20 :

Any other constructive ideas?

Chicken and the egg. If ISP charge for more bandwidth they won't raise the caps or tiers. First problem is TV, you will have no choice but to have your TV provider be your internet provider if not your internet bill will be huge when HD TV gets to become standard. It goes on and on.
reply

rradina @ 13th Sep 03:59PM:
Re: as long as there is no minimum....

Regarding piracy -- it would certainly curtail it but there are two things different now than in my youth that make piracy much more pervasive:

1) It's quick and incredibly easy to rip a CD.
2) Everyone has high speed connections to share files.

For the moment, let's assume 2 becomes expensive. We still haven't addressed 1.

In my youth we made 8-track (yes, I had a Radio Shack Realistic 8-track recorder!) and later cassette tapes of each others albums and 45rpm hit singles. Recording took place in real time. If you wanted to copy someones album, it took an hour to make the copy. There were some tape-to-tape decks that would copy at faster speeds but a tape copy of an album contains significantly degraded fidelity. At the very least, a tape-to-tape copy doubles the degradation. Bottom line -- it was a pain in the ass to share music.

Today even without high speed Internet connections, the digital age makes it quick and easy to copy music. With a thumb drive friends can share hundreds of albums with minimal hassle. It's even easier if the music is already in MP3 format because there's no rip time. Practically instant, perfect copies can be made.
reply

Diaboyos @ 13th Sep 04:01PM:
Re: Unintended Consequences

said by jp :

Better to find a narrow-beam solution for those using "too much" bandwidth rather then the nuke option that hits all users.

That's how I feel about Sandvine.
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 04:03PM:
Re: Who Cares...Again...

said by swhx7 :

That's exactly the problem. As long as it's not feasible to run more wires to the end users, the "last mile" should be a public utility with providers given access on a competitive basis.

That's fine as long as the public utilities purchase the infrastructure from the corporate entities. But then you are talking expenditure of tax dollars which most constituents/consumers tend to shy away from.

said by swhx7 :

As long as they have oligopolies, they will squeeze the customers instead of improving infrastructure. In countries where there is regulation to make public interest superior to private profit (e.g. Japan, Scandinavia), they have big bandwidth, low prices and competition to please the customers.

I happen to enjoy private profit, and I'm guessing a majority of other capitalists in this country do as well. Competition is great, and I welcome it at any time, however I don't support government subsidizing. Government incentive, maybe.
reply

rradina @ 13th Sep 04:04PM:
How about metered LD?

Haven't we learned our lesson? When my wife and I were dating, we spent two years apart while she finished college. I remember $200 and $300/month long distance bills. That's all changed now because anyone that doesn't have an unlimited long distance plan is either ignorant or never makes a long distance call. For that matter, how many of us with our cell phones even consider what's long distance or local?

Isn't the same true of unlimited LD plans? Don't the few use most of the capacity? Where is the outcry?
reply

Kearnstd @ 13th Sep 04:04PM:
Re: Unintended Consequences

what is a normal use? as more and more mainstream things suck bandwidth the usage of a normal user goes up. just think of people using Xbox Live Marketplace.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 04:08PM:
Re: Profits

said by Corehhi :

Chicken and the egg. If ISP charge for more bandwidth they won't raise the caps or tiers. First problem is TV, you will have no choice but to have your TV provider be your internet provider if not your internet bill will be huge when HD TV gets to become standard. It goes on and on.

It's only a chicken/egg situation if you're talking about the fact that 100 Mbps connections aren't deployed to all consumers. In a bill for usage scenario, you won't have caps or tiers. I don't understand your comment about TV. Why would your TV provider have to be your ISP? What are your "on and on" problems?
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 04:11PM:
Re: Unintended Consequences

Simple. ISPs already have all of their users' usage data. It's not difficult at all to define "normal".
reply

TKadlec @ 13th Sep 04:11PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

said by texans20 :

said by mpelle4456 :

You pay to use electric, and you pay to use water.

Yes, and I have total control over what I use. The electric company can't 'send' me additional electricity or install appliances that burn electricity just to do it. Same for my water company. If I don't turn it on, it doesn't get used.

Same can't be said for the Internet. I can just see it now. My ISP decides it needs additional revenue so they send me spam or add lots of advertising - or both. They have too much control over what I receive. Until I can totally control how many bytes I receive, metered internet billing is a bad idea.
reply

morbo @ 13th Sep 04:14PM:
Re: as long as there is no minimum....

they can factor it into the per byte cost.

was thinking about this for other sectors, like electricity and gas companies. why have a minimum service fee, if not to just screw customers out of a few more dollars? figure your costs per unit of measurement (killowat, etc.).

can't cable tv operators do this too? that would be nice. everyone has every channel, but you are charged only for the time you use it.
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 04:14PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

Hypocrisy is great. I can easily turn your argument around and defend ISPs' usage of capping and traffic shaping techniques. The ISP is being billed for what you are using so they will take action to guarantee how many bytes you can receive and therefor control their expenses.
reply

expert007 @ 13th Sep 04:15PM:
Why Does It Have to Be One or the Other?

Why not charge bandwidth 'hogs' a premium for going over the caps? Then the average Joe can go with a lower rate plan.
reply

Lineage @ 13th Sep 04:19PM:
Wanna know what metered billing is like?

try verizon ISDN. without knowing they charged per minute connected (fools didnt tell us that was part of it, they just said 45$/month) we quickly racked up a $3,400 bill, WITH NORMAL INTRENET USE. (normal being surfing and some gaming, the occasinal small (less than 60mb) downloads. no 18 hour piracy downloads) now they charged per minute, and the ISDN downloaded at 14k a second. 14k x 60 = 860k a minute. so they were basically charging us 2 cents per 860k.

good thing we later worked it out and got them to drop the bill, on the premise we were never told anything.
reply

jjoshua @ 13th Sep 04:20PM:
Re: So now I can pay twice...

said by openbox9 :

I would propose that the "speed tiers" go away and that you have a basic access fee and then be billed for usage.

So what would my speed be? ISPs throttle hogs to make sure that everyone has a good "experience". If you take away tiers or throttling then some people will not have a good "experience". Then where does that leave us?

Oh, also, folks are going to start getting wise to the 100k flash banner ads that get downloaded on every web page visit. Those do add up.
reply

BF69 @ 13th Sep 04:25PM:
Re: Tired of users freeloading off of your unsecured hotspot?

said by jgkolt :

Tired of users freeloading off of your unsecured hotspot?

how does metered help that.that will only increase with metered isps

Because when you get a HUGE bill in you'll finally be motivated to secure you hotspot.
reply

jp @ 13th Sep 04:26PM:
Re: Unintended Consequences

I understand what your saying - and it is rational - but with a meter running in the background - bandwidth usage would always be on my mind - there is a psychological effect that comes into play and that where I believe the unintended consequences comes into play.
--
All that is gold does not glitter Simplycomp Solutions
reply

Sammer @ 13th Sep 04:28PM:
Re: Unintended Consequences

If it doesn't affect normal users there is no reason to call it "bill for the byte" or metered billing. When most users pay a fixed price while only "bandwidth hogs" pay overage charges that is a modified cap. There is also the possibility of a hybrid. In fact some utilities do now bill a fixed charge, a normal usage rate, and an overage rate.
reply

BosstonesOwn @ 13th Sep 04:28PM:
Re: So now I can pay twice...

said by openbox9 :

said by jjoshua :

I can pay once for the speed tier and again for the actual data. No thanks.

I would propose that the "speed tiers" go away and that you have a basic access fee and then be billed for usage.

said by jjoshua :

Who is going to pay for the continuous script kiddie activity hitting my firewall day and night? Not me.

You already are through your monthly bill. Besides, it would have to be on hell of a script kiddie to generate sufficient traffic bouncing up against your firewall to become an issue.

How about a script kiddy with a botnet that you pissed off by head shoting him on CSS. Maybe he can grab your ip from the server if its his and just sits there and DDos you from 1/4 the way around the world. Driving your bill up.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"
reply

dvd536 @ 13th Sep 04:32PM:
Re: as long as there is no minimum....

said by plat2on1 :

there would have to be a minimum, bandwidth isn't an ISP's only cost

the minimum = what you currently pay then add in what you use. its a WIN WIN for ISPs.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth
reply

BF69 @ 13th Sep 04:32PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

said by TKadlec :

Yes, and I have total control over what I use. The electric company can't 'send' me additional electricity or install appliances that burn electricity just to do it. Same for my water company. If I don't turn it on, it doesn't get used.

And while you're at work or on vacation I can use your gargen hose to fill my pool or use an outdoor extention cord and plug it in to your outdoor outlet. And unless you catch me YOU are stuck paying that bill. I can also tap into your phone line and run up your long distance bill quite easily. It's not like the phone company has locks on those boxes on the side of your house.
reply

Sammer @ 13th Sep 04:40PM:
Higher Prices for Average User

Anyone who thinks that a provider who talks about "billing by the byte" is talking only about bandwidth hogs and not raising rates on the average user is a fool.
reply

dvd536 @ 13th Sep 04:44PM:
Australia crap

Needs to stay in australia! needless to say if this came here, i'd dump my provider and use those 6 open APs that i see on a regular basis.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth
reply

RayW @ 13th Sep 04:49PM:
Re: Why Does It Have to Be One or the Other?

said by expert007 :

Why not charge bandwidth 'hogs' a premium for going over the caps? Then the average Joe can go with a lower rate plan.

But according to certain industry apologists, they can not advertise what the caps are because company X down the road will add 10 MB to that and look better. Although I think my ISP (not related to the carrier - qwest) has not had any problems by stating that you have 100 GB total.

So I think think the hidden caps issues are just an excuse to limit getting better service in place for certain areas (after all, hidden means you can not compare what you are paying for in various areas).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 04:52PM:
Re: Higher Prices for Average User

The same can be said for anyone who thinks the average user will pay more than currently with all things being equal.
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 04:53PM:
Re: Australia crap

I bet they wouldn't be open after the first month's bill came in.
reply

TechieZero @ 13th Sep 05:00PM:
Re: Who Cares...Again...

GTE paid and built my last mile, why should others not do the same?
reply

devnuller @ 13th Sep 05:00PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

I think metered billing addresses the over consumption problem. If you know there is a cost to all you can eat, maybe you won't take what you can't eat. If you do, then you will pay for it and not get cut off.

As far as stifling innovation, I disagree. Innovation must work within boundries and be efficient.

You use analogies like electricity, water, sewer. All of these have usage costs and perhaps bandwidth should as well.

The bits are not free to the ISP and if I use them, I should pay for them.
reply

TechieZero @ 13th Sep 05:04PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

Bleh bleh bleh. :D
reply

AquaBlaze @ 13th Sep 05:04PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

said by mpelle4456 :

The Internet is fast on its way to becoming the most essential home utility - just as important as your lights or water or sewer.

I can't remember the last time I *needed* internet. It's damn handy...but a necessity?

Sewage? You best damn believe I need to take a crap.
Electricity? Folks died in the last LA heatwave w/ brownouts, last I recall.
Water? Yeah...I'm attached to drinking.

I can live without 24/7 entertainment, information, and porn. I wouldn't want to, but I'm not about to shrivel up and die from a lack of it. (well, maybe the porn)
reply

AquaBlaze @ 13th Sep 05:08PM:
Publish the %*@#ing Caps!

The title is all that needs to be said. All the hubbub and commotion that the major ISPs get into over the mystery 99th-percentile users could be advoided...if people could just find out what they're advoiding.
reply

anon @ 13th Sep 05:13PM:
Re: Who Cares...Again...

agreed. the only way market forces keep ISP's in check is if we have true competition. right now most of us can choose between a cable company and a phone company, and, competition-wise, that's not working out too well at the moment.

i like your suggestion, make the "last mile" public domain and let ISP's compete for customers. this seems to be working well for our friends across the pond, but i can guarantee you it will not happen here. incumbents will fight tooth and nail to stop any idea that makes them actually compete for the customer's dollar, not to mention our government representatives stand to make a killing from the lobbyist's bribes. it'll never happen.
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 05:19PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

Umm, you're misreading my post. We're making similar arguments in support of metered usage and other controlling mechanisms.
reply

TechieZero @ 13th Sep 05:20PM:
Re: Who Cares...Again...

This is BS as well. First it was the "monopolies" that are hurting us. Now it's the "oligopolies". Guess what? Even a "monopoly" has to respond to market influences, if you charge too much, you will get less customers to buy your --- in this case LUXURY. You want as many subscribers as possible so that you have a chance to bill as much as possible and cross-sell as many goods and services as possible.

You aren't happy w/ your current ISP? Get a few hundred ppl in your neiborhood to invest a few grand, get a ditchwitch, lots of some kind of data medium to dig in the ground, a bunch of switches in a shack, and hook to a trunk. Go create SWHX7 ISP co. and have fun.
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 05:23PM:
Re: So now I can pay twice...

Line speed, or whatever the ISP sets their ports at. Your "good experience" is handled by appropriate network management, charging users for their usage, and then using the increased revenue to build infrastructure accordingly.

As for flash banner, they're annoying and I already have them blocked...along with most other things that I don't want to see as part of my user experience.
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 05:27PM:
Re: So now I can pay twice...

Cost of doing business. If consumers choose to piss off people along the way, then they need to be ready for the consequences. Why should the ISP be on the hook to pay for the blast of traffic stemming from your actions in this scenario? They shouldn't. They're simply passing along increased expense to their consumers...where it belongs.
reply

Warez_Zealot @ 13th Sep 05:28PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

Internet isn't a phone line. The only reason there were long distance charges was because they were monopolies. If they try to do that format here, they would loose business. I for one would rather get unlimited dial up and a second phone line than pay double or triple for metered inet.

Only something like metered internet could happen in a backwards country like the USA.
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 05:33PM:
Re: Unintended Consequences

Just like turning off your lights and the water running in your sink when not being used. Metering has a wonderful way of conserving finite resources.
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 05:35PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

I love ignorant comments. How do you think ISPs buy bandwidth access in the first place?
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 05:40PM:
Re: Unintended Consequences

I'm not saying most users pay a fixed price. I'm saying that if metered billing is structured appropriately, most users wouldn't see a change in their bills unless they started transferring more data per month. With metered billing, there will be no caps (kind of defeats the benefit to the ISPs if they cap your usability).

said by Sammer :

In fact some utilities do now bill a fixed charge, a normal usage rate, and an overage rate.

Now you're getting the idea.
reply

TechieZero @ 13th Sep 05:47PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

Ahhhhh. I apologize. This topic kills me. :D
reply

grandpinaple @ 13th Sep 05:50PM:
Re: its almost time...

Use it to pay for the porn you won't be downloading.
reply

mitska @ 13th Sep 05:57PM:
bah

nothing to see here, just another grab at yours and my hard-earned dollars. Day this happens is the day I take the pruning shears to my cable lines and make the side of my house look better. Bottom line, you make it terribly expensive to share on the internet, people will share another way and you will lose customers and money. What's next? You watched 4 extras hours of HBO last week, we claim your firstborn child?
totally asinine...
reply

antdude @ 13th Sep 06:00PM:
Re: its almost time...

said by grandpinaple :

Use it to pay for the porn you won't be downloading.

If he/she into that. ;)
reply

anon @ 13th Sep 06:06PM:
Already here

People are talking as if this is something that "might" happen, when in fact it's been going on for years. Many ISPs explicitly charge for bandwidth (not at the first byte, of course - you get a chunk of 'free' bandwidth for your monthly fee). Many others have an implicit price of INFINITY$ for bandwidth (i.e. they won't sell bandwidth at any price if you cross a secret threshold). Funnily, many people are happy to delude themselves into believing that an infinite price is less than a finite price.
reply

David @ 13th Sep 06:08PM:
Re: as long as there is no minimum....

said by S_engineer :

The people that would love this the most are the RIAA and MPAA. Kids, and adults, would curtail their piracy if they were truly paying for the product.
The thought of this however sets a very bad precedent!

I had this same thought about 2 years prior, and still think it's going to come to it. I can guarantee when one provider starts doing it, they all will.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!

reply

TKadlec @ 13th Sep 06:09PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

said by BF69 :

said by TKadlec :

And while you're at work or on vacation I can use your garden hose to fill my pool or use an outdoor extension cord and plug it in to your outdoor outlet.

And just how does illegal activity apply here? You steal something and compare that to...what in this thread?
reply

Kearnstd @ 13th Sep 06:10PM:
Re: Unintended Consequences

said by openbox9 :

Just like turning off your lights and the water running in your sink when not being used. Metering has a wonderful way of conserving finite resources.

difference is it is much easier and cheaper to add bandwidth then it is to build a new reservor or nuclear power plant.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply

viperpa33s @ 13th Sep 06:10PM:
Might as well just go back to dial up

Billing by the byte would not be a good idea cause having the internet would be to expensive to use for a lot of people. To expensive even for the people who only use the internet just for web browsing and emails.

Video streaming, sending home movies, , video downloading, sending pictures, playing online games will be all to expensive to do if you bill by the byte. I am sure no one will want a $300 - $500 internet bill.

My position always has been the government should not get into the internet business. With crazy ideas like this, it makes me kind of wonder if that position is outdated. Might as well go back to dial up, at least you didn't have any of these issues.
reply

wifi4milez @ 13th Sep 06:12PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

said by Warez_Zealot :

Only something like metered internet could happen in a backwards country like the USA.

Yeah, clearly you have never heard of such backwards countries as the UK, New Zeland, Argentina, and countless others who have been charging metered rates for years now. Ahh yes, idiocy at its best folks!
--
я люблю Денди!
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 06:31PM:
Re: Unintended Consequences

Irrelevant. Internet infrastructure is still a finite resource.
reply

hottboiinnc @ 13th Sep 06:42PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

much like Canada as well. Many providers up there; charge per byte or after a certain amount of gigs its charged as overage.
reply

j_on_fire @ 13th Sep 06:44PM:
As if prices would somehow miraclously jump 10 fold.

I pay $50/month.
I think I am under average, so if we went to $/byte I would hopefully only pay ~$35/month. If I really wanted to d/l a game/music/movie etc I'll pay for it; which might kill companies such as Direct2Drive.
The power users can pay for their own useage without me subsidizing them.

I am in favour of the government owning the pipes and the cable/phone companies can lease/rent the last mile, depending on who I choose. But I am only in favour of this when the government gets it's act together. hahahhaahahahahhahahahahhaha.
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 06:50PM:
Re: Might as well just go back to dial up

said by viperpa33s :

Billing by the byte would not be a good idea cause having the internet would be to expensive to use for a lot of people. To expensive even for the people who only use the internet just for web browsing and emails.

You mean too expensive like other metered services such as electricity, oil, gas, water, cell phone, etc.?

said by viperpa33s :

Video streaming, sending home movies, , video downloading, sending pictures, playing online games will be all to expensive to do if you bill by the byte. I am sure no one will want a $300 - $500 internet bill.

Unless the ISPs want to go broke from the attrition of customers, I seriously doubt the normal user doing the things that you referenced will ever see a bill anywhere close to $300.

Eke, the sky is falling.
reply

Jerm @ 13th Sep 07:09PM:
Providers cost per GB? Try $0.10 per GB!

Here's the real problem with Metered Internet:

When ISPs buy in bulk, they get good per GB pricing. Common estimates range from $0.10-$0.20 per GB for the bigger ISPs. (cost from their upstream provider)

How much bandwidth does the *average* consumer use per month? You might be surprised - a large amount of $50/month highspeed users are pulling LESS than 1GB per month! The overall average has been reported in the past to be between 2-5GB per month (from cable ISPs with high speeds).

That's why unlimited internet works. The few users who do use 30-50GB a month are subsidised by the many who do much less. And the very rare > 100GB/month user probably does lose them $$, but this game is all about the numbers.

Why should we NOT go to metered 'net? Because there's no way ISPs would charge a reasonable (ie $0.50/GB) rate and quite simply - despite all the whining here on BBR, most of the time UNLIMITED INTERNET WORKS JUST FINE THE WAY IT IS!
reply

mworks @ 13th Sep 07:53PM:
Re: As if prices would somehow miraclously jump 10 fold.

Its all about greed.
The isp promote unlimited access and then complain when someone uses it that way.
If the isp don't like bandwidth hogs, then limit the connection. Post up front what your limits are for the amount of money and quit whining.
The problem is they won't do that because unlimited is a much better buzzword to attract customers. I'm willing to pay for what I use, but stop this unlimited, but with hidden caps , garbage.
reply

vicorjh @ 13th Sep 08:02PM:
Re: Why Does It Have to Be One or the Other?

Right, that's competition. But it would be terrible (in their minds) if they had to compete.
reply

Warez_Zealot @ 13th Sep 08:04PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

Well they are secluded countries w/ relatively low populations where most of their fibre is run underwater.. What's the USA's excuse?
reply

knightmb @ 13th Sep 08:14PM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

said by texans20 :

Imagine if everyone paid a flat-rate for electric. Instead of you paying for what you use, the electric company divides the total electric bill by all the houses. Your bill would skyrocket! Why? Well first, there would be waste. People wouldn't worry about turning off lights, people would run their AC or heaters as hot or as cold as they want. Second, you would subsidize the heavy user.

Welcome to 21st century. Many places already do this, heck my own city has a flat rate on water. They round everyone to 3000 gallons and unless you use enough water to fill a lake, they won't charge extra. Electricity is the same way in apartments and home complex. They only charge those that have found a way to use some insane amount. I know plenty of people that keep their home 68 degrees in 100 degree summer heat because the electricity is flat rate. Just like they leave all the TV's on, lights on, etc. They also have the ability to take large baths every night with the flat rate water.

The utility companies are a bad example because there are many places that get "unlimited" service. Just like Comcast will cut you off for using some unknown large amount, the water company will cut you off for using 22,000 gallons of water in a month if you don't pay.
reply

jgkolt @ 13th Sep 08:18PM:
Re: Tired of users freeloading off of your unsecured hotspot?

even if you secure your router it still can be hacked. wpa wep. most people dont even know how to use a password
reply

Asmodeus1 @ 13th Sep 08:28PM:
law of unintended consequences...

if broadband isp's decided to charge by usage rather than a flat rate price, then a lot of people might decide that bundling isn't worth it and go al carte... since a lot of people use the net at work, then that's were they will use the net instead, at work, not at home... this will obviously create issues with employers and employees, which will reflect back onto the isp's and the employers... if the employer is charged by the byte, then he will pass that cost on to his customers or find another isp... this is a problem altogether simply because isp's have marketed their 'unlimited' usage and have penalized people for actually using their service in the unlimited way that they are paying for and how it was marketed...

either these isp's need to stop calling it unlimited and actually post what the caps are or they need change their business model... however, nothing will change in pricing due to public utility commission hearings nationwide take place wherever that isp operates and how their pricing structures will affect the public.

This won't be done overnight and because they are utilities more often than not, they will be subject to regulatory oversight... so if they try to pull the pay-per-byte nonsense, you as the public can fight back to stop it...
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 08:32PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

What does that have to do with your comment about backwards countries and metered Internet access?
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 08:38PM:
Re: As if prices would somehow miraclously jump 10 fold.

I believe most (all?) ISPs stopped the "unlimited" marketing a few years ago.
reply

kd6cae @ 13th Sep 08:45PM:
what do ISP's pay their providers?

All this talk of billing by the byte has me wondering, what do our ISP's pay to their upstream providers? For example my ISP Charter cable in this area has connections to both level3 and AT&T. I thought that an ISP merely ordered say an OC12 or OC48 connection to said networks and then they merely pay the several hundered thousand dollar a month per line cost to each provider. Is that not how it works? Are they also connected to them but on a metered plan? I guess that would explain why some ISP's are wanting to do traffic shaping, because the ISP itself otherwise will go over their bandwidth cap that they have with their provider, i.e. level3 and AT&T in my case?
Either way though, how are we going to be able to do such things as high quality audio and video streaming with awesome sound quality if we have to constantly worry about if we'll hit our cap. Me personally, if possible, I'd want a capped system to be uncapped speed wise, so that the only cap I have is what the networking itself can give me. Others who want flat rate plans, can get the speed capped tiers, not unlike how dedicated server folks do things, that works well in my view.
reply

openbox9 @ 13th Sep 08:46PM:
Re: law of unintended consequences...

said by Asmodeus1 :

this will obviously create issues with employers and employees, which will reflect back onto the isp's and the employers...

No issue really. If employees don't produce at work and do their "home surfing" at work, the employer will simply terminate their employment.

said by Asmodeus1 :

if the employer is charged by the byte, then he will pass that cost on to his customers or find another isp...

Most employers already have business classes of Internet access and therefor avoids this issue.

said by Asmodeus1 :

this is a problem altogether simply because isp's have marketed their 'unlimited' usage and have penalized people for actually using their service in the unlimited way that they are paying for and how it was marketed...

Where is the unlimited jabber coming from? What ISPs nowadays market their residential services as unlimited?

said by Asmodeus1 :

however, nothing will change in pricing due to public utility commission hearings nationwide take place wherever that isp operates and how their pricing structures will affect the public.

Last time I checked, Internet service wasn't regulated.
reply

plk @ 13th Sep 08:51PM:
Something gotta give .......or will it

I dont see flat rate billing going anywhere. They dont want to lower prices. They are going to have to down the road if they want to keep adding subscribers. For the most part, we are all about online that can be.

As for by the byte pricing. I dont see it that way. I do see them charging a little extra for over 100 gigs. Maybe an extra 10 bucks for every 50 additional 50 gigs or something. Is that really so bad? Hell, I'll pay and extra 10 bucks just to have the bandwidth.

If they try and charge by the meg, it will kill the net. Ads will be blocked, spam will be gone.....the net will be gone.

Its kinda funny in a way....the Bells and Cables have to keep building and can't really charge too much more. They would love to do away with net neutrality, but I think they know that would kill the net too.
--
Thermaltake 2000a/Asus P4C-e/p4 3.4/ocz3500 2x512/WD.2x200g/raptor2x74 raid 0/ATI 9600/APC sua 1500/Logitech z-680/ Samsung 213t LCD/MX 1000
reply

wifi4milez @ 13th Sep 08:59PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

said by Warez_Zealot :

Well they are secluded countries w/ relatively low populations where most of their fibre is run underwater.. What's the USA's excuse?

The UK is a secluded country with a low population??? Thanks for the laughs this evening, and dont let me stop you from digging yourself further into that hole!
--
я люблю Денди!
reply

Corehhi @ 13th Sep 09:03PM:
Re: Profits

said by openbox9 :

100 Mbs connections? I couldn't get high speed till 5 years ago and that was 1 meg down. I was upgraded for free to 3 megs probably a year and a half ago. I can't purchase a higher tier period. Unless I get a T1.

Just thought about it. I was thinking the TV might be sent over the internet as in movies. Movie on demand. If you had a different company as your internet provider those movies would send you right over any limit they set up. Same with VoIP. If you have company deliver everything it wouldn't be a problem but what if you order HD movies every other night> Usage would be huge.
reply

swhx7 @ 13th Sep 09:16PM:
Re: Who Cares...Again...

said by openbox9 :

That's fine as long as the public utilities purchase the infrastructure from the corporate entities. But then you are talking expenditure of tax dollars which most constituents/consumers tend to shy away from. ... Competition is great, and I welcome it at any time, however I don't support government subsidizing. Government incentive, maybe.

OK, let's estimate a market value for the "last mile", then subtract all that the telcos and cable companies have collected above a market rate due to their privileges (eminent domain to lay wires, for example) and local monopolies. Then also subtract subsidies paid by the federal government for them to build out fiber which they never did (or better yet, the value the public would have realized from fulfillment of that obligation). It'll be very cheap, or maybe a negative number.

Franchises - such as laws prohibiting anyone other than the favored company from operating a cable company in a designated area - and other barriers to entry, and forced easements, etc., are subsidies, so by your own statement you ought to be against them. Let's restore to the public what those subsidies have already cost.
reply

viperpa33s @ 13th Sep 09:23PM:
Re: law of unintended consequences...

said by Asmodeus1since :

a lot of people use the net at work, then that's were they will use the net instead, at work, not at home...

I know a lot of people who use the internet at work instead of at home. Employers also place a lot of restrictions on internet access, video streaming is a good example. Internet at work is suppose to be used for business purposes, not pleasure. As someone said, as more people use it at work, the more restrictions there will be. Soon only a select few who are authorized will be allowed internet access.
reply

Warez_Zealot @ 13th Sep 10:06PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

Uh, yeah digging a hole? How many ISP's even have metered inet in Britain? I'm sure they aren't really any ISP's charging by the byte in London, Glasgow, or the other larger cities. I unless they have a ISP monopoly where you have the choice between cable, 1 telco, and a few resellers..

I heard that NZ, AU, and Argentina do, but that's because they are cut off from society, and the cost of running fibre cost a lot, so they charge up the ass to avoid upgrading.

Charging by the byte is going to halt the evolution of the internet in USA, Canada, not develope it quicker.
reply

anon @ 13th Sep 11:29PM:
Re: As if prices would somehow miraclously jump 10 fold.

said by j_on_fire :

I am in favour of the government owning the pipes

The Gubmit is *allowed* to listen to what it owns...

Think again.
reply

redshift @ 13th Sep 11:36PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

Having seen metered plans first hand in other countries, usually data like Microsoft updates or Linux distributions or other stuff like that can be placed on the ISPs server, and usually isn't metered. It saves the ISP a lot of bandwidth usage, and the customer some money.
reply

redshift @ 13th Sep 11:42PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

NZ and Au do charge by the gigabyte, but they have capped plans as well, just not that same as the North American ones. What they do over there is slow your internet down when you exceed your data limit for the month.

Bandwidth costs in Au/NZ are nearly 100X more than what you would pay for it in the US, primarily because of the fact that most of the bandwidth is controlled by a monopoly, or duopoly, and of course the bulk of the data is overseas, and therefore run through expensive underwater fiber/fibre.

That being said though they have access to pretty innovative technology such as ADSL2+/Annex M and most people can get 8Mbps dsl even in rural areas. So it doesn't necessarily halt innovation, but can actually drive it.

Compare that to say a place like the GTA in Canada. You'd be lucky if you could even get 5mbps DSL, with most people syncing at 3mbps...if lucky. And don't even start about the oversold Cable (Rogers) where they throttle everything including torrents,voip, so the extra "bandwidth" is a mute point. Of course they also have invisible caps, which Bell Sympatico also now openly admits (check out their plans). Also no residential FTTH providers like Verizon, so in that respect the US isn't that backwards.
reply

hhawkman @ 13th Sep 11:56PM:
I can't believe no one said this.....

Byte me.
:D
reply

BF69 @ 14th Sep 12:00AM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

said by TKadlec :

said by BF69 :

said by TKadlec :

And while you're at work or on vacation I can use your garden hose to fill my pool or use an outdoor extension cord and plug it in to your outdoor outlet.

And just how does illegal activity apply here? You steal something and compare that to...what in this thread?

Um you said

"The electric company can't 'send' me additional electricity or install appliances that burn electricity just to do it. Same for my water company. If I don't turn it on, it doesn't get used."

Companies that install shit on your computer without your consent are doing something illegal.
reply

AquaBlaze @ 14th Sep 12:17AM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

said by BF69 :

Companies that install shit on your computer without your consent are doing something illegal.

And ISPs do this...how?
reply

djrobx @ 14th Sep 02:39AM:
Re: Metered Billing is a very bad thing...

quote:
The Internet is fast on its way to becoming the most essential home utility - just as important as your lights or water or sewer. Soon all content - HD video, data and VoIP will come over one pipe.

That's the problem. Electricity and water are metered. Why not data? "Soon all content will come over one pipe"... So do you think the cable companies really want to lose all that TV revenue to a "flat $40/month" when all the TV comes flowing in over IP?

The telco DSL operators have enjoyed "locking" their users into having a POTS line for a long time. Cellular is what will keep AT&T and Verizon from becoming extinct dinosaurs.

reply

anon @ 14th Sep 07:24AM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply

openbox9 @ 14th Sep 08:04AM:
Re: Profits

The 100 Mbps connection is hypothetical. It really doesn't matter what the connection is as long as you have a connection. Where are you getting HD movies on demand over the Internet? Even if you are, time to start sharing that cost with your transit provider. I'll grant you VoIP consumes a portion of your bandwidth, but honestly, the requirements are so low that unless you use it 24/7, I don't think you'd have a problem.
reply

openbox9 @ 14th Sep 08:14AM:
Re: Who Cares...Again...

Not sure what these companies have collected above market or how you would even begin to calculate it if even exists. Nice story on the "paid for fiber, but we never got it". The story I read doesn't show any subsidies being paid. Maybe I glanced over it, and if I did, I'll reread. Bottom line, the companies using the ROW paid to deploy the "last mile" and shouldn't be forced to "give" it to the government without being appropriately compensated.

Are there exclusive franchise agreements? I'm guessing that if there are, they are very few in numbers. If there's no exclusivity, where are the subsidies that you speak of? I'm against subsidizing private industry and I'm against preventing/limiting entrance of competition to the marketplace. I don't see a problem right now, beyond the fact that most companies don't want to spend money to enter a marketplace to compete.
reply

tmc8080 @ 14th Sep 09:28AM:
don't feed the pigs

even discussing the idea of billing by the byte is only to encourage feeding the pigs who are too stingy to give customers the QUALITY OF SERVICE which has been available to business for DECADES. there is NO WAY customers would get MORE for LESS under a by the byte plan, unless they consumed less, which gives ISPS the right to charge as high as they can get for the service, which in many parts of the country is udder SH*T. Imagine having a sub 3mbit service and BUYING your service by the BYTE... say goodbye to $10 unlimited 768kbit dsl plans, no.. it's $10 for every 4 gigabytes down/uploaded... your just ASKING FOR TROUBLE like this..
reply

anon @ 14th Sep 09:46AM:
RE: what do ISP's pay their providers?

Perhaps matching billing patterns with DS1s, DS3s, OC3s, et al, wouldn't be a bad idea. Pricing would probably go up, but it could stop the bandwidth caps. When purchasing a higher end line, typically you would pay for the loop (physical line), and port (the amount of internet on the line). Added in is the transport costs, and taxes, but the model has merit in that if you purchase a 1.5 Mb DS1 loop and full bandwidth on that loop, you can do what ever you want with that bandwidth. Given I would say average cost per Mb is about $45/month, but you are guaranteed that bandwidth reserved unlimited. And I'm sure some providers could also provider a 95th percentile for some customers if they prefer to pay on a per Mb basis.
reply

anon @ 14th Sep 09:47AM:
Re: Providers cost per GB? Try $0.10 per GB!

the bond issues!

Some isp's fund their growth through bond issues. Stable predictable income is what investors want.

Not a unpredictable revenue stream that only pays in the cold months.

Its not feasible for the reasons you mentioned. Most people don't use their connections so it would probably reduce cash flow except in the coldest months of the year.
reply

axus @ 14th Sep 11:42AM:
It could work if it were cheap enough

Charging $20 for the monthly connection fee, and 3.125 cents per gigabit, you'd get 100GB/mo for $45. Or 1GB for $20.25. After that, providers could compete on connection fee and gigabyte cost.

But, you know that's not how it would go. In a non-competitive environment, it would be like the old telco bills. Higher connection fee, much higher $/Gb.

And, as people mentioned, billing is much harder, and billing disputes much harder, when you have to meter. The inefficiencies would add a lot to the monthly connection fee, that aren't in the current system.
reply

openbox9 @ 14th Sep 12:22PM:
Re: Providers cost per GB? Try $0.10 per GB!

Minimum fee for service which includes a basic amount of traffic per month. Above that, you pay per byte. There would be no reduced income for the ISPs. In fact, they would see an increase in revenue.
reply

openbox9 @ 14th Sep 12:28PM:
Re: don't feed the pigs

If you want the QoS that is available to businesses, purchase a business solution. I don't believe anybody has said that customers would get more for less with a metered service. That's not even logical.

I would actually love to only pay $10/mth for 4 GB of traffic compared to my current $55/mth.
reply

wifi4milez @ 14th Sep 02:35PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

said by Warez_Zealot :

I'm sure they aren't really any ISP's charging by the byte in London, Glasgow, or the other larger cities.

Yawn. That hole must be so deep by now that you will have a hard time getting out. I think now would be a good time for you to (un)gracefully bow out of this argument.

PlusNet
»www.plus.net/?home=hometop

Bulldog
»www.bulldogbroadband.com/index3.asp
--
я люблю Денди!
reply

Ahrenl @ 14th Sep 03:07PM:
Re: as long as there is no minimum....

They wouldn't love it when all their online sales go "poof" because everything is now twice as expensive.
reply

Warez_Zealot @ 14th Sep 03:12PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

Wow, keep trying. The fact is, there is a generation of people from 14-25 who would never go on metered broadband knowing it's a scam unless it was their only option.

If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.

P.S Are those the only 2 ISP's in all of Britain? lol... I'm sure their clients are the equivalent to that USA AOL subscribers..
reply

wifi4milez @ 14th Sep 03:21PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

said by Warez_Zealot :

Wow, keep trying. The fact is, there is a generation of people from 14-25 who would never go on metered broadband knowing it's a scam unless it was their only option.

Quick demographic less here pal, most people in that age group aren't buying/paying for their own broadband due to the fact that they live at home. You must be getting close to China now, so keep on digging......
--
я люблю Денди!
reply

Fox McCloud @ 14th Sep 04:33PM:
Re: Tired of users freeloading off of your unsecured hotspot?

your logic is exactly what I was thinking; people will just start freeloading off of each other and screwing over the person that owns that connection.

All in all, bill by the byte is a disaster waiting to happen....I can see billing by blocks of like 20-30GB (with the next 20-30GB being only a couple bucks more....nothing to fret over), but by the byte is going to be ick.....(please note that I wouldn't even support the 20-30GB blocks either; I'm for unlimited's true and canonical definition).
reply

telcolackey @ 14th Sep 05:43PM:
It's all about "greed"?

"greedy private corporations."
"Its all about greed."
"monopoly"
"need competition"

These messages will be regurgitated over and over until the inevitable day usage tiered billing is in place to address the obvious change in broadband around usage vs. max speed. When that day comes, all "cap" discussion will end as consumption will be funded.

Then 99% of all users will get a fast service at a good price and the 1% will start complaining about the next thing they want unlimited for free.... electricity. no. water. no. gasoline. no. wireless minutes. no. Air. (you can buy that in a can in Denver)

Opinions... yes the one thing we will always get for free
reply

AMDonUT2004 @ 14th Sep 11:08PM:
dial-up

no caps, use all you want, dial-in all you want, get kicked offline ever 4 hours, spend about 3 nights downloading 120 MB files with a download manager, i still live in those days now :D
reply

AMDonUT2004 @ 14th Sep 11:11PM:
and,

use about 2 to 3 GB a month if i'm on online games or doing a lot of websurfing, and 2 to 3 GB on dial-up takes an intense amount of time to use to, about a month, that could be done in about an hour on cable or dsl, and with fios and symmerial fiber, about 10 minutes :o
reply

KrK @ 15th Sep 12:03AM:
Re: It's all about "greed"?

said by telcolackey :

"greedy private corporations."
"Its all about greed."
"monopoly"
"need competition"

And those are wrong because..... ?
reply

joker5656 @ 15th Sep 12:25AM:
pay per byte my a$$

I couldn't and wouldn't support this. I'm an online gamer so this would be out of the question, as with all the other 100 millions of others across the world. If my ISP did this i would drop all services, and i know a lot of others would to. Then you got business that would be hurt by this also, you know the debit cards and credit cards that are used. Now the big companies might get by but the smaller ones wouldn't. it would hurt online sales for companies also, cuzz now your limited to how many pages you look at cuzz your not going to compare the different clothes/price shop online with 5+ companies.

I think the people that want this are probably stock holders in ISP's so they see it as a good idea to milk us for more money.
reply

MarkRH @ 15th Sep 02:50PM:
Bad Idea..

What about all those bloated websites out there full of ads and other crap. If ISP's started charging by the byte, then technically couldn't all those ads be considered the same as say, unsolicited faxes, which are against the law. After all, it would cost you money to see their ads.

Places like CNN, ESPN, and so on would have to provide text only sites. Also, if I visited a business's website, I would expect them to cover all bandwidth costs while viewing their offerings.. I'm not going to pay for their poor coding and less than optimal image compression.

Also, what about all the traffic that's constantly in the background.. my firewall log is full of dropped TCP and UDP packets. I'm not gonna pay for that unwanted stuff.

I could also see user's trying to make companies pay for multi-megabyte software and driver updates, claiming that it's not their fault the company's software is broken.

This is regardless if it's setup as pay per byte or in blocks of however large GB.
reply

Warez_Zealot @ 15th Sep 08:46PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

Your not making any sense. Sure they may or may not be paying for inet now -- which is un-metered (by that I mean no surplus fees). One day those kids will eventually move out, and will not buy metered internet where you pay by the bite.

Either you are in China (where generations of families live together) or maybe you have nice parents who will let you live at home for the rest of ~~your~~ their life. If that's the case great for you. Just run up that pay by the bit internet cause they pay for it; but where I come from 99% of most parents kick their kids out by the time they hit 18 -19 let alone 25...
reply

wifi4milez @ 15th Sep 10:54PM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

said by Warez_Zealot :

Your not making any sense. Sure they may or may not be paying for inet now -- which is un-metered (by that I mean no surplus fees). One day those kids will eventually move out, and will not buy metered internet where you pay by the bite.

Again, you still dont seem to get a very simple concept and your comments only confirm this. Assuming people are "kicked out of the house" at 18 as you suggest, they are most likely going to be watching every penny. If those same people are given the chance to pay $20 (for example) for a metered internet plan, then they are going to chose that over a $60 "flat rate" plan. Given that it has been proven time and time again that most people dont use egregious amounts of bandwidth, a cheaper alternative (metered rate) would be a boon for millions of people in this country.
--
я люблю Денди!
reply

Piggie @ 16th Sep 03:21AM:
Re: Perhaps if they offered a two tiered model.....

90% of the problem didn't even start until the cable dsl bandwidth wars. Who can bring the most to your door for the least.

If cable and dsl companies would sell reasonable packages, at a price they need to charge, this would mostly end. If 512 would be in the $20 range, to replace dial up. $30 to $35 for 1.5 and in the $60 range for 3m. This would solve a lot of problems. If 99% of their customers are not bandwidth hogs, they could live easy on the lower speeds.

I have throttled my router to 512 to see what it would be like, and one can surf very comfortable. Just some longer movies on news sites and Utube take longer.

The bandwidth war was a dumb idea and now it's back to bite the consumer. Sad :@(
--
| Speedstream 4200 Modem - 3m/384 plan | W98-W2KSP4-XPSP2 - All AMD | Buffalo WHR G54S with OpenWRT WR0.9 | 2 downstream switches feeding 5 total clients (no wireless) | Including the Data port on the side of my neck |
reply

dvarona @ 19th Sep 11:01AM:
Why doesn't this idea make sense to most people?

Honestly, this approach is probably the best way to go. If you want unlimited bandwidth, you've got to pay for it. Make it cheaper for those who know they don't need as much, and make it clear when you're approaching your limits. The wireless phone companies already work this way.

The problem with the current system is that $29.99/mo or whatever it is does not support a constantly-downloading 10Mbps connection. If there are more people who are willing to pay for unlimited bandwidth, then the provider will have the financial incentive to expand the network. If you can't pay for unlimited bandwidth, then you don't get it, just like you don't get unlimited talk time on your cell phone.

The rates should be set within reason so that the caps increase with technology over time, and the lowest tiers still get to experience bandwidth-intensive stuff on a reasonable level. Of course, I'll bet that this will be the most contentious area, since the maximize-all-revenue approach of the company will be fighting the minimize-all-costs side of the consumer. Requires lots of marketing research I suppose.

--dv
reply

dvarona @ 19th Sep 11:07AM:
Re: Bad Idea..

I'll agree that web sites will need to start considering the bandwidth they require to visit them. If you're bumping against your limits then you'll visit them less often, and they get less revenue. You'll employ ad blockers or video blockers and they'll need to compensate.

The real problem is that bandwidth IS money, no matter how you slice it. Providers have been trying to hide this fact to attract customers, but they have too many customers for their networks and no financial incentive to provide more. As much as we talk about greed, running a company is about balance between revenue and expenses and without enough revenue you can't incur the expense of expanding your network and still feed all the employees and their families.

--dv
reply

dvarona @ 19th Sep 11:12AM:
Re: pay per byte my a$$

If they're barely taking in enough revenue to support their employees, how can they incur the expense to expand their network? Running a company isn't always about greed. If it's a public company, they produce a report that shows how much money they take in, and what their expenses are, and how much the management is compensated.

Bandwidth equals money, despite flat-rate pricing. The problem is that they've told people it's unlimited, and bandwidth usage is going up because of sites like youtube and P2P. So in order to expand the network capacity, they need more revenue... where is that going to come from? It's a balance that's hard to strike, especially when you've poorly managed your customers' expectations.
reply

BIGbadjohn @ 20th Sep 07:46PM:
Re: its almost time...

My ISP has already started it here.

»www.names.co.uk/broadband-platinum.html

NamesCo