baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
1 edit | Metered billing
I dont think its a bad idea, just as long as they do it fairly (decreased prices for those who use less?) and have a REASONABLE tiered system. They would need a bandwidth meter freely available, and clear and consice overage fees
Also, a 40gb cap that TW was imposing was really low, Comcasts was much more reasonable at 250gb; ATT is in the middle at 140gb(i believe it was close to that)
As long as they review it year to year and realize that usage will increase, they should raise the cap annually. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by baineschile  :Also, a 40gb cap that TW was imposing was really low, Comcasts was much more reasonable at 250gb. I find myself seeing that Comcast's approach, with a relatively high limit and throttling of people who go over to be more reasonable and fair than any system that charges overages and has a low cap. At least Comcast can legitimately argue that "it is all about punishing the hogs."
Such an approach also leaves Comcast an incentive to continue network upgrades. TW's approach on the other hand discourages improvements because there is now an incentive to collect more in overages instead of spend money on improvements.
If FIOS goes to caps, and I think they will because Verizon isn't browbeating the cable companies over the caps issue, then this will be a lost cause.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :I dont think its a bad idea, just as long as they do it fairly (decreased prices for those who use less?) and have a REASONABLE tiered system. They would need a bandwidth meter freely available, and clear and consice overage fees Also, a 40gb cap that TW was imposing was really low, Comcasts was much more reasonable at 250gb; ATT is in the middle at 140gb(i believe it was close to that) As long as they review it year to year and realize that usage will increase, they should raise the cap annually. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
First off, I seriously doubt any of the cable companies are going to lower base rates. That would cut into their profits and while those who consume more would pay more, those who consume less would pay less. As the cable companies have said, it is only that 1% that hogs up everything so while you have 1% paying more, you have 99% paying the same or less.
The 40GB cap is useless. You can go over that easily even with legal means like Youtube, MS updates, gaming, etc.
They only "review" that they will do would be how to squeeze that much more out of people. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
·VOIPo
1 edit | reply to baineschile
If metered billing is done right it can work, but TWs way is(was?) too crazy. Why do they insist metered is the future? FiOS can go un-capped(but if what I heard it ture, verizion owns a I forget what its called but when you up-load/down-load on their network they actually make money from that, IDK if it is true or not), so can cable vision.
If they charged us 2x per GB what it costs them I would be ok with it. Say they pay 10 cents per GB ad 5 cents to get it to us, we would pay 30 cents per GB.
And internet is probably verizons main source of income, so y would they make their main source of income look bad/worse? |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to pnh102
I agree. |
|
Cherokee
@csfb.com
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :I dont think its a bad idea, just as long as they do it fairly (decreased prices for those who use less?) and have a REASONABLE tiered system. THEY ARE TRYING TO METER AND UNLIMITED RESOURCE. WHAT ON EARTH DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS???
Would you prefer the start charging us all for our average oxygen consumption in order to better regulate the environment? It's an UNLIMITED resource. There is NO need to meter it. There is not some company out there hoarding up all of the bits and bytes on the internet.
Not to mention, as has been said time and time again, costs are dropping, user base is increasing and profits are increasing. A company's responsibility to its self is to take it's profit and REINVEST in infrastructure in order to maintain its business model. If it does not do this, then it has no one to blame but itself. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
I still don't buy the need. Ther more they talk about it the more they get the foot in the door. Per byte billing does nothing for congestion, it only gives them additional revenues from which the carriers MIGHT take a portion of and upgrade.
There has been no data supplied by any carrier that coild buttress their argument. Furthermore, TW preeeded this mess by stating they might only surgically upgrade in select markets.
Its time this discussion turned to regulating broadband as a utility. This way the cablecos would have to have to prove their claims before some sort of Public Utilities commission for increases would be approved. I'm just tossing out ideas...if you've got one better I'm all ears.. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
·VOIPo
| I too think there is some regulation needed. If they want to meter bill you so they can make more money they can with no reason they do own their internet. but when they lie that is different they are doing it for the same reason whether they lie or not, so why not not lie? |
|
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :I dont think its a bad idea, just as long as they do it fairly (decreased prices for those who use less?) and have a REASONABLE tiered system. They would need a bandwidth meter freely available, and clear and consice overage fees Also, a 40gb cap that TW was imposing was really low, Comcasts was much more reasonable at 250gb; ATT is in the middle at 140gb(i believe it was close to that) As long as they review it year to year and realize that usage will increase, they should raise the cap annually. I think it's great too, you see, from now on, I'll add up all the bandwidth from Comcast users that visit my websites and send Comcast an "overage" bill for too many of their users. I'll set the cap at a generous 10MB a month and for ever byte over that limit, I'll charge a very generous $1 / Megabyte.
I'm just trying to cap the bandwidth hogs that use Comcast so that the service remains fast and to help curtail those pirates, Arrrg!! 
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data |
|
HiDesert
join:2008-08-17
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :This way the cablecos would have to have to prove their claims before some sort of Public Utilities commission for increases would be approved. I'm just tossing out ideas...if you've got one better I'm all ears.. I agree since at this time its all based that their claims are true but there is no real numbers to back it up. Obviously, companies like Warner have huge motivations to lie and fudge the truth about congestion, upgrades etc.. If what they say is true then they should have no issues for an independent team to study their network issues... but watch how they would fight any action like that.. they would spend millions to keep their networks a secret.
I wish Warner's plan had gone through since it was indeed nuts. It would have started a firestorm of class action lawsuits from large companies like netflix for net neutrality violations. Warner knew this and pulled back.. but they are looking for a different angle. If companies take the comcast approach they will keep the regulators off their backs. If they take a crazy approach then the regulators will step in and it will be their own faults at that point. |
|
Matt
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to Cherokee
I think you're a bit confused. Just because there are an unlimited numbers of bits doesn't mean there are an unlimited number of lanes for those bits to travel on. There are a hell of a lot more cars on the road than there are lanes for them to drive on. Same principle.
You generate the bits, an ISP provides the lanes.
I agree with most of the folks in this thread, if they want to move to a usage based billing model that's fine, but it needs to be reasonable. 1GB,5GB,10GB,40GB, and then the ludicrous "Pay us $150 a month for unlimited" is absurd. |
|
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to Cherokee
Nothing in an unlimited resourse |
|
PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD | That was wrong on so many levels. Of course there are things which are perceivable to be an unlimited resource. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :I dont think its a bad idea, just as long as they do it fairly (decreased prices for those who use less?) and have a REASONABLE tiered system. but the thing is they WON'T so therfore why it should be stopped. If you get it in writting and they agree to be severly punished if not "reasonable" ok sure. |
|
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
·Comcast
·AT&T Yahoo
·SureWest Internet
1 edit |  if implemented correctly you say?
how about 5 dollars for .10 per gb
100gb= 10 bucks so 15 bucks let say the speed are uncapped as well
10 dollars for .05 per gb
so 100gb= 15.00 for total month
so you see this model works better
now if you paid 5 bucks and use 10gb or less thats 6 buck a month
yes if implemented correctly but the greedy cable co will not do anything to save those who use less
they are greedy filthy and disgusting 
to save user even more money
15.00 for .03 per gb
20.00 for .02 per gb
25.00 for .01 per gb lol
100gb=1 dollar
1TB=10 dollars
as you see it can be a challenge to user which to choose that will save them lots of money
metering is a pain and it will cause much confusion
SCREW METERING
Unlimited is the best way to go even if you don't use much
no matter how it is implemented metering blows |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy :said by baineschile :I dont think its a bad idea, just as long as they do it fairly (decreased prices for those who use less?) and have a REASONABLE tiered system. They would need a bandwidth meter freely available, and clear and consice overage fees Also, a 40gb cap that TW was imposing was really low, Comcasts was much more reasonable at 250gb; ATT is in the middle at 140gb(i believe it was close to that) As long as they review it year to year and realize that usage will increase, they should raise the cap annually. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! First off, I seriously doubt any of the cable companies are going to lower base rates. That would cut into their profits and while those who consume more would pay more, those who consume less would pay less. As the cable companies have said, it is only that 1% that hogs up everything so while you have 1% paying more, you have 99% paying the same or less. The 40GB cap is useless. You can go over that easily even with legal means like Youtube, MS updates, gaming, etc. They only "review" that they will do would be how to squeeze that much more out of people. You are absolutely correct. Their desire is to charge the low usage users the same or slightly more and the heavy users a LOT more. The low usage/computer illiterate customers will NOT see a cheaper service fee.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
·Comcast
·AT&T Yahoo
·SureWest Internet
| reply to me1212
said by me1212 :I too think there is some regulation needed. If they want to meter bill you so they can make more money they can with no reason they do own their internet. but when they lie that is different they are doing it for the same reason whether they lie or not, so why not not lie? I think it would be better for road runner cable to stop offering internet
Who needs metering crap?
Only a desperate person would want metering because their isn't an unlimited alternative
To those who have service cancel completely, all service with road runner just let them go out of business like the loser they really are. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | I get what you are saying, but what I am saying is "why do they have to lie?". |
|
thevorpal
join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA
| reply to sturmvogel
You are absolutely correct. Their desire is to charge the low usage users the same or slightly more and the heavy users a LOT more. The low usage/computer illiterate customers will NOT see a cheaper service fee.
I have direct proof of that. When I asked Time Warner/RR what my rate would be when they implemented the cap, the response was:
$29.99/month
I currently pay $24.99/month
for the absolute basic service.
So my rate would go up $5, AND I would get a 1Gb cap. I go over 1Gb/month just updating Windows and my regular software.
I switched to the low offer not because I download very little, but because I don't need to download very fast. I was so upset that they were going to implement caps, I called back the next day and cancelled. Even when they retracted their plan, I'm still cancelling, I don't want to give money to a company that would implement such a policy. |
|
fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight :That was wrong on so many levels. Of course there are things which are perceivable to be an unlimited resource. Not even the Sun is unlimited. It too will die one day. |
|
