American Cable Association: Metered Billing Inevitable - 'The outcome is certain,' says organization head...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
baineschile @ 29th Apr 09:07AM:
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.
reply
DataRiker @ 29th Apr 09:09AM:
only in uncompetitive markets
funny how cable companies can offer uncapped service in competitive markets
reply
baineschile @ 29th Apr 09:11AM:
Re: only in uncompetitive markets
I live in Detroit Metro with Comcast's 250GB cap, and here we have ATT Uverse, WOW Cable, and Comcast.
TW was doing it a little unfairly.
reply
JoeIac @ 29th Apr 09:15AM:
Not a Good idea
I think that if cable companies can prove that a user is using an excessive amount of bandwidth, then they should have some leeway to ask them to upgrade tiers or drop them, but the idea of paying for internet on a per-gigabyte basis is terrible!
Cable companies need to start thinking more towards the future, and between FiOS and Docsys 3 they're going to need a new plan, and fast.
But caps are not the answer, upgraded networks are the answer.
IMHO, if users are really degrading your networks so much, and you're still posting huge profits, then you're doing something wrong.
reply
pnh102 @ 29th Apr 09:16AM:
Re: Metered billing
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!
reply
DataRiker @ 29th Apr 09:16AM:
Re: only in uncompetitive markets
Yes, well I like many have only one choice, the local cable company Cox.
While they have been great thus far, having only "soft caps".
Many people use 500+ GB's per month and have never heard a peep.
Funny thing is cox has no caps on their service in Lafayette, where fiber is now being offered.
reply
ExitWound @ 29th Apr 09:18AM:
Conflicting Messages
So when I see these types of reports, I get conflicting messages. I have a cable company offering me services in which I have to pay to receive them. But if I use their services, I risk using it too much, and therefore am penalized by using the service they're offering me. How can they tell me to upgrade to HD, use onDemand, use their phone services, and then cap me on the amount I can use it? As a customer, I would *NEVER* subscribe to services such as those.
--
»www.theexitwound.com
reply
moonpuppy @ 29th Apr 09:19AM:
Re: Metered billing
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.
reply
me1212 @ 29th Apr 09:22AM:
Re: Metered billing
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?
reply
me1212 @ 29th Apr 09:23AM:
Re: Metered billing
I agree.
reply
TwoCpus4me @ 29th Apr 09:26AM:
It sucks
Who is going to pay for all the bandwidth for the flash advertising. Leave your computer sitting on a webpage, it refreshes itself constantly and downloads flash advertisements.
Most users have no control of that, short of not going to webpages, which is the end result of metered billing.
reply
baineschile @ 29th Apr 09:27AM:
Re: Conflicting Messages
The same goes true with cellular phones. You can order 500 texts per month, at 501, you are getting overages
reply
anon @ 29th Apr 09:29AM:
Re: Metered billing
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.
reply
HiDesert @ 29th Apr 09:32AM:
Re: Conflicting Messages
said by ExitWound :
How can they tell me to upgrade to HD, use onDemand, use their phone services, and then cap me on the amount I can use it? As a customer, I would *NEVER* subscribe to services such as those.
TV and phone services should be separate and unlimited to your HSI. IMO, the main purpose of capping the HSI end is to protect their own content on the PPV, TV end of it. Especially with companies like Warner who have allot invested in the content end of it. They won't admit it but its blatantly obvious. I think moving forward they also would like to put a hold on upgrades just so they can milk the cow and max returns for the investors. What this will get them at some point is the whole thing thrown into the courts for net neutrality violations.
reply
S_engineer @ 29th Apr 09:32AM:
Re: Metered billing
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..
reply
me1212 @ 29th Apr 09:36AM:
Re: Metered billing
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?
reply
k1ll3rdr4g0n @ 29th Apr 09:39AM:
Rollover!
Metered billing is fine, if you have some sort of rollover system!
Think about it, if you buy 5 apples you aren't restricted to only eat the apples you eat within the next day.
If you buy 20 GBs and only use 5 GB this month, 15 should rollover to the next month. Otherwise, you are paying the price of 20 GBs when you have only used 5 GB. I believe this is the only fair model for both consumers and businesses because people's usage per month varies and to make them pay for something they don't use I would say is illegal.
You paid for 20 GBs of service, you should be able to use 20 GBs of service....regardless of when you use it.
Providers have dug their own grave. Who lives in the Homer Glen area I'd be willing to buy a T1 (or even a T3) to provide unmetered wireless (wired?) to this area. Anyone? It only costs $400/month, and at 10 people paying about $40/month for access I think its worth it to get away from this cap BS. In fact I think I would even pitch in $50 which means 9 people/T1. Of course, any illegal activity means instant disconnect and a fine to get back on :).
reply
knightmb @ 29th Apr 09:40AM:
Re: Metered billing
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!! :p
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data
reply
dobby10 @ 29th Apr 09:43AM:
Cable, the only industy that goes backwards!
A brief communications history...
You used to have to pay for each call you made from your home phone..... Not Today!
You used to be given a limited number of cell minutes and have to pay crazy overages if you went over... Today - Unlimited Plans Galore!
You used to have unlimited Internet... The future - you pay for how much you use???
I love how they make NO sense!
reply
HiDesert @ 29th Apr 09:50AM:
Re: Metered billing
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.
reply
Matt @ 29th Apr 09:52AM:
Re: Metered billing
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.
reply
HiDesert @ 29th Apr 10:02AM:
Low caps.. not a good idea
Lets say that Warner did implement their crazy meter plan. What would they have done in markets that had heavy competition? Relax the rules and pick and choose or adjust those caps accordingly? Or face a mass reduction in subs in those markets? What were they thinking? Obviously not much thought at all.. just images of $$$$. Its apparent they don't want to follow the comcast route being it still leaves room for people to use services like netflix. Its going to be interesting what they try next. My feelings is they are feeling out just how much they can get away with without the PUC and regulators jumping in.
reply
baineschile @ 29th Apr 10:04AM:
Re: Metered billing
Nothing in an unlimited resourse
reply
maartena @ 29th Apr 10:06AM:
Re: Rollover!
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n :
Providers have dug their own grave. Who lives in the Homer Glen area I'd be willing to buy a T1 (or even a T3) to provide unmetered wireless (wired?) to this area. Anyone? It only costs $400/month, and at 10 people paying about $40/month for access I think its worth it to get away from this cap BS. In fact I think I would even pitch in $50 which means 9 people/T1. Of course, any illegal activity means instant disconnect and a fine to get back on :).
A T1 line is 1.5 Mbps, so you'd be sharing that 1.5 Mbps with 10 people. Yeah it works, but I have seen companies with T1 lines shared by 20, 30 people, and it can get very slow on peak times.
Household bandwidth requirements are going to grow. Before you know it one of those 10 people buys an XBox for their kids with Netflix to download movies, and a T-1 won't be enough.
Also, who would be police-ing the T-1 line to determine what is illegal? ;)
And then there are some costs you haven't accounted for, for instance who will be investing the costs up front to get the actual internet to the houses you are talking about? Wireless may be the most cost effective, but you'd need a few strong transmitters in the area and cable running amongst them to get it done.
It's not a bad idea though, but it may be better to have a company with capital behind it come in and do something like that, because they will be able to foot the $3,000 in a whim to repair that storm damaged wireless transmitter on your barn to get access back up in 24 hours while they wait 3 more weeks for the insurance company to pay them back. You may not have that kind of savings. ;)
reply
PapaMidnight @ 29th Apr 10:08AM:
Re: Metered billing
That was wrong on so many levels. Of course there are things which are perceivable to be an unlimited resource.
reply
mrkahuna @ 29th Apr 10:17AM:
Where's my metered TV?
Why do I have to pay for TV channels I don't watch? Those TV channel watching hogs are costing me! Oh that's right, this isn't a ploy to help me, the customer, it's a ploy to raise revenues. If they offered "metered" TV ( aka. a la carte channel selection ) I might believe that they care about their customers... might.
reply
Phil75070 @ 29th Apr 10:19AM:
Will it hurt sites as well as consumers?
The problem I see with metered billing is getting charged for all of the stuff I DON'T want, the advertising, the heavy graphics or streaming video that is part of some sites. If there are sites that are "bandwidth heavy" I might just stop going to them. Why should I potentially be billed for something I did not want?
reply
BF69 @ 29th Apr 10:23AM:
Re: Metered billing
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.
reply
maartena @ 29th Apr 10:24AM:
Re: Cable, the only industy that goes backwards!
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, back in the 30ties people would pay a fixed fee for water, because they didn't have the capability to meter every house yet. It wasn't until the 50ies that all houses started to receive meters and individual water bills.
Back in the 30ties and 40ties, GAS was unmetered, and you would pay a flat fee for gas. Same thing, sometime in the 50ies gas meters were installed everywhere and you started to pay per cubic foot of gas used.
The difference however: You pay about $5 per month to keep your water line connected if you aren't using a drop.... you are still paying $40 or more for your internet even if you don't use it.
IF metered billing is "the way of the future", I want them to lower the price of the base connection significantly, and then meter the connection, NOT add the metering on top of what we already pay.
And as mentioned above, who pays for the content and the spam we haven't asked for? If you meter the content, people should also have the option through an easy to understand ISP website to block ads, block spam with a great degree of certainty, make exceptions to sites etc.
Hey, I can block specific numbers I don't want to have calling me with my Vonage, as well as use the do-not-call registry, refuse calls that have a blocked callerID, etc. If it was a cell phone those things would go off of my valuable minutes and text message quantity, and if you are going to meter my connection, we should have the same power to stop certain bytes from coming in and adding up to the metering.
All I see TWC doing right now is adding to the corporate greed. At least Comcast's 250 Gb cap is really aimed at the small percentage that abuses the network, and you don't have to pay the first time you may cross that line.
TWC's 40 Gb hard cap and pay up if you exceed it.... is just too ridiculous beyond words and smells like one thing: corporate greed.
reply
MSauk @ 29th Apr 10:24AM:
Re: Will it hurt sites as well as consumers?
So now broadband companies are going to treat us like utility customers then? If that is true then they better begin to build service to everyone since they are going to be a utility.
--
801 Images
reply
NetAdmin @ 29th Apr 10:27AM:
Don't bill by the GB
If metered billing is going to be fair, don't bill by the GB. Simple as that. Bill by the actual impact on the network - either 95th percentile (ideally) or simple average bandwidth utilization per month.
Billing by the GB, especially when prices like $1.00/GB or even $.50/GB are being floated around, is going to put a huge damper on the development of new applications and services because everyone is going to try to avoid overage charges. It also creates the impression in users' minds that they are being nickeled and dimed as each byte is counted and billed to them.
Billing based on 95th percentile or plain average bandwidth usage per month actually charges the customer based on their actual impact on the network. Billing by the GB can result in situations where low network impact in terms of sustained bandwidth usage results in large per GB overages.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"
reply
neufuse @ 29th Apr 10:29AM:
only way around...
Metered billing is the only way around the preferential services stuff... if we can't give preference to websites that pay us money and have to give all services at the same preference level, they heck lets bill the customer to death for using them....
reply
BF69 @ 29th Apr 10:33AM:
Re: Will it hurt sites as well as consumers?
said by Phil75070 :
The problem I see with metered billing is getting charged for all of the stuff I DON'T want, the advertising, the heavy graphics or streaming video that is part of some sites. If there are sites that are "bandwidth heavy" I might just stop going to them. Why should I potentially be billed for something I did not want?
That part is overblown. Al that "advertising" etc ads up to les than 1 GB a month. Also all that "unwanted" advertising is why you have FREE access to those sites. so you don't want to pay for access, but you don't want ads. Are websites charity? Do you go into McDonald's and expect free food?
reply
mod_wastrel @ 29th Apr 10:47AM:
ACA...
"Making free white-spaces broadband inevitable."
When it costs them more to carry 2 bytes than it does to carry 1 byte, then metered billing will "make sense". (But since it doesn't, it's really just extortion.)
reply
PrntRhd @ 29th Apr 10:59AM:
Metered billing
Cable providers can drink that Kool Aid but when actual competition comes to town they will find it difficult to keep that business model.
Increase competition!
reply
mottman8 @ 29th Apr 11:04AM:
Welcome to AOL circa 1995
Do these companies learn nothing from the past? This is like a reverse AOL move. Start of as an all you can eat company and then go to the hourly plan. AOL had a significant boom once it went to unlimited use, I can only imagine the opposite would backfire on all these companies.
reply
anon @ 29th Apr 11:04AM:
Metered Billing
I agree that billing for overages does nothing for congestion. If congestion is REALLY an issue, then why do you keep increasing speeds? seriously! If you are worried about contgestion, go back to 6MB by 384 and make those who want higher speed pay for additional tiers. I get 15/1 and don't use anywhere near the speed, but I do use a lot of data. Higher speeds only allow the company to bill overages quicker!
I think that TW should just go away and let the government take over, they get a lot of the fees anyway, just skip the middle man
reply
jadebangle @ 29th Apr 11:09AM:
Re: Cable, the only industy that goes backwards!
The point is it has always been unlimited since year 2000 or before that... now all of a sudden they decide to add meter to make more money or get us to pay a hell of a lot more.
its that simple
no need to any silly analogy
reply
axiomatic @ 29th Apr 11:10AM:
Choice
I have no problem with metered billing as long as cable companies still offer an un-metered plan as well.
I'm willing to pay to not be hassled. Even if it is an exorbitant price.
I have a huge investment in structured wiring at my house. Both my wife and I work from home for the largest PC manufacturer on the planet and we move a lot of business data regularly. Plus we have an xbox 360 in 3 rooms, tivos in 2, roku media players as well, so we have a large need for bandwidth and ALL OF IT IS LEGAL!!!! I think in about two years more time my type of household data consumption will become the norm. We can hit 250Gb + every month without even breaking a sweat.
How do I pay my way out of your stupid cap TW? You MUST provide an option.
reply
jadebangle @ 29th Apr 11:13AM:
Re: Metered billing
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 :(
reply
jadebangle @ 29th Apr 11:29AM:
Re: only in uncompetitive markets
said by baineschile :
I live in Detroit Metro with Comcast's 250GB cap, and here we have ATT Uverse, WOW Cable, and Comcast.
TW was doing it a little unfairly.
Really?
I think they all blow
even comcast will kick me off in a month or two cause they don't like user who consume a lot
if you people put up with their crap or let them put one foot in the door, you're screwed for life.
reply
sturmvogel @ 29th Apr 11:30AM:
Re: Metered billing
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.
reply
viperlmw @ 29th Apr 11:30AM:
Re: Will it hurt sites as well as consumers?
said by BF69 :said by Phil75070 :
The problem I see with metered billing is getting charged for all of the stuff I DON'T want, the advertising, the heavy graphics or streaming video that is part of some sites. If there are sites that are "bandwidth heavy" I might just stop going to them. Why should I potentially be billed for something I did not want?
That part is overblown. Al that "advertising" etc ads up to les than 1 GB a month. Also all that "unwanted" advertising is why you have FREE access to those sites. so you don't want to pay for access, but you don't want ads. Are websites charity? Do you go into McDonald's and expect free food?
But that's the problem. One person's overblown hype is another person's final GB that pushes them over the cap. If you are paying to use the internet, then you should be able to USE THE INTERNET without fear of additional charges. Wireline long distance used to be metered. Now it's $15 a month, all you can talk. The water analogy above isn't similar, because there are plenty of good reasons to try to limit a user's water usage. There are no GOOD reasons to limit broadband usage. Limits will stifle innovation, and the money will end up in corporate pockets (anyone notice TWC made MORE money, without metering?). As noted above, household bandwidth requirements will only INCREASE as time goes on, while carrier costs will DECREASE.
reply
sturmvogel @ 29th Apr 11:32AM:
Re: Welcome to AOL circa 1995
AOL had a lot of competition due to other dial up providers. The cable companies tried to first kill competition, then do this ugly move on their customers.
That is why monopolies are illegal and why the cable companies should be broken into smaller, competitive pieces.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.
reply
jadebangle @ 29th Apr 11:35AM:
Re: Low caps.. not a good idea
said by HiDesert :
Lets say that Warner did implement their crazy meter plan. What would they have done in markets that had heavy competition? Relax the rules and pick and choose or adjust those caps accordingly? Or face a mass reduction in subs in those markets? What were they thinking? Obviously not much thought at all.. just images of $$$$. Its apparent they don't want to follow the comcast route being it still leaves room for people to use services like netflix. Its going to be interesting what they try next. My feelings is they are feeling out just how much they can get away with without the PUC and regulators jumping in.
apparently they want all of their customer to cancel internet and use television as the only means of entertainment...
as well as pay per view or PPV
That's exactly what they want...
they could careless if no one subscribed to their shittycrappypathethiclosers metered internet
Its intentional...
reply
jadebangle @ 29th Apr 11:39AM:
Re: Metered billing
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.
reply
me1212 @ 29th Apr 11:40AM:
Re: Metered billing
I get what you are saying, but what I am saying is "why do they have to lie?".
reply
me1212 @ 29th Apr 11:44AM:
Re: Cable, the only industy that goes backwards!
Give it time, cable vision got rid of its caps and FiOS has no caps(but I heard they own something they would make caps anti-profitable) comcast has un-capped business classes, so we still have some hope. Cable vision will start offering 101m/15m for $99(when bundled) with no cap may 11(I think). FiOS is testing un-capped 100m too. FTTH may just help get rid of caps, and cablecos like cable vision, but mostly FTTH as they can use the no cap to get costumer from cablecos that have caps..
reply
thevorpal @ 29th Apr 11:54AM:
Re: Metered billing
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.
reply
me1212 @ 29th Apr 11:56AM:
Metered billing
If it was a real metered billing(A.K.A. pay as you go) I would be ok wit that. $10-ish for 5m/1m and 2x what it cost them for a GB so if when all is said and done it cost them 10 cents it would cost us 20 cents. So 500Gb would be $110.
reply
anon @ 29th Apr 11:58AM:
cable tv
how come whenever I hear about these caps it's always one sided putting the caps on internet usage. Why don't I ever hear about putting camps on the cable tv usage. It would seem to me that cable tv users are using more bandwidth than the internet users.
reply
djrobx @ 29th Apr 11:59AM:
Re: Choice
One of the tweets from JeffTWC said they weren't planning on metering Business Class.
"Are you asking me if CBB applies to business class customers? That's a big N-O for now. ... "
Of course, businesses usually get screwed worse than than residential, so I wouldn't count on it staying that way for long should metering get popular.
Technically if you're willing to pay a "exorbitant" price, TWC has capped their metering charges to $75. So you can just pay $150 per month and treat your lower traffic months as a bonus.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
reply
anon @ 29th Apr 12:28PM:
Re: Choice
The cable companies don't want to invest more money into their backhauls. They like to oversell their connections and figure that only a small port of users will actually use their connection completely. Their just worried because the internet is really taking off with netflix, amazon, hulu etc. They don't want it to start cutting into their bottom line when they have to upgrade in order to handle all that extra bandwidth people are using. IMO that's the cost of doing business.
reply
bngdup @ 29th Apr 12:03PM:
Cable is the new PSTN
The Cable network is becoming the new PSTN. They are just refusing to compete and are instead counting on their monopoly power to implement these new metered plans in order to stave off internet video adoption for a few more years.
I can only hope FTTH will help change the minds of cable companies but I doubt it. Unless the government steps in and takes a strong stand to protect consumers interest in these matters the free market is going to have a field day with this country. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a socialized state owned network but I do want laws in place to stop the collusion between the dominant ISP's here from screwing us over. I would also like to see an end to the lobbying against small town governments from setting up their own FTTH services to compete with lazy incumbents who don't want to build out in those towns.
reply
lesopp @ 29th Apr 12:04PM:
Broadband Customer: Loss of Market Share Inevitable
These scrubs are jumping all over the metered billing bandwagon while at the same time wanting us to believe they can't deliver alacarte programming.
Metered billing needs heavy regulation, this only improves the bottom line for the greedy without improving product or value for the consumer.
Right now I have a choice between Brighthouse and Fios. I'm using Brighthouse for internet and Fios for TV, the first one that implements metered billing looses my patronage.
reply
amungus @ 29th Apr 12:06PM:
Re: Metered Billing
Agree with most of that except for gov't take over.
Seriously, why increase "speed" if this is the end result?
Take me back to 3-4Mbps/sec and leave it there until capacity is fair - with NO "overage" or "cap" crap.
I'd bet MOST people would rather have SLOWER internet access if it meant they could use it as often as they want...
This "need" for pay-per-wtf-ever-they-want is ABSURD and INSANE.
Drop speeds, or maintain CURRENT ones until it works for EVERYONE. Stop this madness.
Give me that 3Mbps (circa 2003) instead of 9Mbps IF it has no such insane restrictions placed upon use.
What a stupid idea.
This insanity has to stop now. It will only get worse if we let it.
reply
Dolgan @ 29th Apr 12:08PM:
Could be a boon for Telcos
The devil will be in the details, but if metered billing is widely adopted by the cable industry it may drive customers back to DSL and traditional wireline services. The threat of caps alone raised quite a bit of ire... if actually implemented those with a choice will switch providers.
reply
djrobx @ 29th Apr 12:29PM:
Re: cable tv
With the exception of SDV, on a cable TV system, every cable channel is being broadcast to every home 24/7. So tuning into those channels has no negative impact on your neighbors, nor would massive increases in average use create the need for additional infrastructure to be built.
That said, cable companies used to bill an extra "per tv" fee when additional TVs were connected in the home (without a set top box). Some law got passed that prevented them from being able to do it.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
reply
major marco @ 29th Apr 12:35PM:
Re: Welcome to AOL circa 1995
said by sturmvogel :
[...]
That is why monopolies are illegal and why the cable companies should be broken into smaller, competitive pieces.
Of course, you must be referring to monopolies found in industries other than cable, because in metro markets, the broadband choice is either cable or DSL. Two competing cable internet cos. are rarely found in the same market because the cable cos. bought off pet politicos to ensure that status.
Frankly, I don't ever see the stranglehold cable/telco has on the U.S. government letting up. Politicians will always be on the take. It doesn't matter what stripe they wear or who they claim to represent. Money talks and the so called elected representatives sold out to Big Business decades ago. The only way there will ever be true competition is if there is a law that prevent cable television companies from also functioning as an internet service provider.
A cable co., by its very nature for being, is diametrically opposed to internet by virtue of the fact of emerging video on demand services such as Hulu. It is a huge conflict of interest for the gatekeepers of the internet access pipes to have an abiding financial interest in the content they sell transmitted via cable television vs the access they sell to other content provided by competitors over their Internet service.
It's simple, really...cable cos. should be prohibited from operating/owning competing media such as television and internet. There's a reason why Ma Bell was broken up in the 80s, only to reassemble itself 25 yrs later. It is unfortunate that Americans keep re-electing the same tired, monied, asshole politicians to fuck them over year after year and deregulate everything.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
reply
modemslayer @ 29th Apr 12:49PM:
Inevitable
The consumer getting screwed is inevitable.
reply
DaEnigma @ 29th Apr 12:54PM:
RE: Metered Billing / Caps
This is nothing more than an attempt to secure revenue they are losing, and put a strangle hold on the inevitable move to streaming television programming.
They are seeing a loss of revenue to companies like Netflix, and Amazon via streaming STB's like TiVo and Roku. In addtion to the number of folks whom now watch video from their PC.
Metered billing and low caps will do nothing more than stifle broadband innovation and further secure the local monopoly/duopoly.
If there was real competition we would not even be having this discussion. Broadband internet has become a cornerstone of the modern household, and these monopolies/duopolies know they have us over a barrel.
They see the writing on the wall and the move to Internet video/programming is coming. Many of these companies ignored the signs and followed the same business model member companies of the RIAA followed. They refuse to move and flow with the development of new media delivery systems, and instead cling to their old ways of generating revenue. If this fails(ed), then strong arm people into preserving their lines of revenue and do the ostrich maneuver.
reply
Eat Me @ 29th Apr 01:14PM:
Re: Metered billing
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.
reply
anon @ 29th Apr 01:20PM:
Nationalize it
I think the only way they can fix this issue is to have it taken over by the government. Broadband and other utilities (electric) that have such a huge impact on the nation and economy should not be allowed to be run by private companies. They have no motivation other than profit, so they will never do what is best for the country. This is espeically true for service providers that require a large infrastructure investment of cables and equipment, because they always eventually become a monopoly.
reply
Realtech23 @ 29th Apr 01:30PM:
Who this Benefits!!
"Time Warner Cable posted a net profit of $164 million, down from $242 million a year ago due to separation costs from Time Warner. Total revenue rose 5% to $4.4 billion." DON'T THEY MAKE ENOUGH MONEY AS IS? Just Fattens there pockets more for doing less and gives them excuses not to upgrade networking. "oh consumers aren't using as much now since the caps, so I guess we really don't need to do any upgrades" that is what they hope to say when its all said and done. Not to mention, Another Outsourcing Violator. Can I please have an actual US company? 100% US company?
--
US Money, US Companies, US Workers all pay for these company's products and services and yet when they fold they Use US resources to pay for Foreign outsourcing. All companies who do this should be ashamed of yourselves and should be HEAVILY TAXED.
reply
anon @ 29th Apr 01:54PM:
Disregard customer's wishes at your own peril...
... if these companies try to jam this down our throats, they will be sorry. If this happens, all I can say is HELLO MOVIE RENTAL (by mail), over the air, no cable TV, cheapest internet plan just to be able to check mail, do banking. These companies will pay.
Come on everyone, dollars talk, BS walks. These companies WILL LISTEN TO US, or they will suffer the consequences.
Evolving your networks is very cheap, most of these companies have healthy profits, marginal bandwidth costs these companies almost nothing. There's NO EXCUSE for trying to gouge customers for even more money.
Evolve, or some other company eventually will eat your lunch. Guaranteed. In the meantime, many customers will resist with everything they have.
reply
morbo @ 29th Apr 02:05PM:
Re: Metered billing
said by me1212 :
I get what you are saying, but what I am saying is "why do they have to lie?".
simple: put the blame on someone else. "[cable companies] have no choice! the user hogs are eating up all the bandwidth. it's for the good of all. etc. "
compare that to: "We want more of your money."
reply
weaver0 @ 29th Apr 02:15PM:
Re: Nationalize it
said by Joe50 :
I think the only way they can fix this issue is to have it taken over by the government. Broadband and other utilities (electric) that have such a huge impact on the nation and economy should not be allowed to be run by private companies. They have no motivation other than profit, so they will never do what is best for the country. This is espeically true for service providers that require a large infrastructure investment of cables and equipment, because they always eventually become a monopoly.
LOL "@exxonmobile.com" :D
you forgot the /sarcasm
reply
k1ll3rdr4g0n @ 29th Apr 02:15PM:
Re: Rollover!
said by maartena :said by k1ll3rdr4g0n :
Providers have dug their own grave. Who lives in the Homer Glen area I'd be willing to buy a T1 (or even a T3) to provide unmetered wireless (wired?) to this area. Anyone? It only costs $400/month, and at 10 people paying about $40/month for access I think its worth it to get away from this cap BS. In fact I think I would even pitch in $50 which means 9 people/T1. Of course, any illegal activity means instant disconnect and a fine to get back on :).
A T1 line is 1.5 Mbps, so you'd be sharing that 1.5 Mbps with 10 people. Yeah it works, but I have seen companies with T1 lines shared by 20, 30 people, and it can get very slow on peak times.
Household bandwidth requirements are going to grow. Before you know it one of those 10 people buys an XBox for their kids with Netflix to download movies, and a T-1 won't be enough.
Also, who would be police-ing the T-1 line to determine what is illegal? ;)
And then there are some costs you haven't accounted for, for instance who will be investing the costs up front to get the actual internet to the houses you are talking about? Wireless may be the most cost effective, but you'd need a few strong transmitters in the area and cable running amongst them to get it done.
It's not a bad idea though, but it may be better to have a company with capital behind it come in and do something like that, because they will be able to foot the $3,000 in a whim to repair that storm damaged wireless transmitter on your barn to get access back up in 24 hours while they wait 3 more weeks for the insurance company to pay them back. You may not have that kind of savings. ;)
I don't disagree a T1 will get sucked up real quick, but its a start. Personally, I would rather pay for a slower connection (especially since this is cheaper) that I can use "all-you-can-eat" rather than a faster connection with a cap. It's kind of the same thing in relation if you think about it. Fast speeds are great, but I am a fan of all you can eat (I goto a lot of buffets and haven't been kicked out of one for "eating too much".).
If I get a report from the **AA that is what I consider illegal and a way to weed out the stupids.
You would be surprised the amount of money I can scrounge in little amount of time.
I mean it was more of a joke than anything, but I wont even think about it if no one is interested. But, if you think about it - if you can get the support of enough of your neighbors you could easily be making some money (not ALOT, but enough to at least establish yourself). And I believe you should start small and work your way up. Buying an OC connection is overkill for an average sized neighborhood - especially only if 5 people are interested.
reply
surrogate @ 29th Apr 02:17PM:
no time for the old in-out luv, gotta read the meter
So is a tech going to have to come out and install the meter or will there be a self-install kit? There is no actual meter you say. I'm supposed to trust the slimey cable co. Sorry, that isn't going to happen. If they want to charge me like the electric, gas, and water utilities then they should have to have to install a user readable meter like the utilities.
reply
S_engineer @ 29th Apr 02:21PM:
Re: Metered billing
First off, sorry for all of the grammatical errors in my post, I'm glad you actually got the point.
I'm glad that TW balked at this trial because litigation would have taken years. In that time other carriers may have implemented the same insulting caps w/overage charges.
If that had happened, then unwinding this mess would have been a much bigger challenge.
This is a golden opportunity for a politician to make a name for him/herself by taking this issue and running with it. The establishment of a regulatory oversight body to approve the pricing based on the verification of the carriers claims would greatly help the consumer. A cap could then be defined as part of the price to be approved or denied. This is currently being done with electric and natural gas. The first step would be to define broadband as a utility!
reply
KodiacZiller @ 29th Apr 02:48PM:
Government Regulation Now.
There are very few instances where I think the government has any business in the private business sector, but this is definitely one of them. The fact that consumers have no choice necessitates that the government act on behalf of the consumer.
The MSO's have not provided one shred of evidence that A) their profits have decreased because of unmetered Internet or B) that their networks are actually congested at all. Until they can provide evidence of either A or B, then one must look at this as merely a money grab and non-competitive business practice at one of the worst economic times in modern history to attempt such a scheme.
It's interesting that cell providers have went from metered usage to now almost universal unmetered usage, while the broadband providers have done the OPPOSITE. The avarice of the MSO's just wont stop until it is forced by law to do so.
reply
cornelius785 @ 29th Apr 02:50PM:
my only demand
if they want to do this RIDICULOUS idea of metered billing, i want a COMPLETELY open connection (no closed ports) with no filtering, throttling, mysteriously cutting out, etc.
seems like only the cable companies are the one pushing and actively capping connections and metering connections, i wonder why.....
reply
fiberguy @ 29th Apr 02:50PM:
Re: Cable, the only industy that goes backwards!
Your post is wrong on so many levels.
With Telco, you still have metered plans. They did, however, start offering unlimited local calling plans at a higher cost. The metered local plan still exists.
You are still given a limited number of cell minutes with overage, EXPENSIVE overage at a rate MUCH higher than the early 90's. Unlimited plans are not "galore" but they exist and usually at a MUCH higher cost.
In the 1990's, you paid $25 a month for base service - JUST to have the bill from cellular companies. AND, you paid $0.15 per minute off peak and holidays, and usually $0.29/30 per minute peak FOR EVERY MINUTE USED. However, today's overages are anywhere from $0.50 to about $0.35 cents overage. What's the net affect of this? Prices have in fact gone up per unit.
And, before you go bashing cable being "the ONLY industry that goes backwards" lets not forget who stood up a few years back and raised the loudest argument... Ed Whitacker of AT&T/SBC... a provider that owns a significant backbone in this country.
Remember, he cried "my pipes".. those were his backhaul pipes which is what largely drives the cost of your residential service. Further, AT&T is also testing billing by the byte plans too and last I checked, AT&T is not only a pretty monstrous telephone provider that isn't a cable provider, but they also have a huge chunk of the backbone.
I also recall that it was cable that introduced telephone services largely with the all you can eat nationwide phone plans. Telephone didn't start offering them until cable did in earnest.
Your post is very slanted and you're clearly under-educated to the facts out there.
No provider, be it telco, cable, satellite, and even the worshipped and beloved FiOS isn't sitting back and looking at ways to raise their revenue right this very moment. They're just looking to do so in ways that the customer either won't notice, or have any way to stop it.
reply
Lazlow @ 29th Apr 02:52PM:
Re: Metered billing
The limited part of this entire equation is Mbps not GB/month. Transit costs and hardware costs are entirely defined by peak Mbps. Any downloading done during off peak hours costs the ISP absolutely nothing (0) extra. A 5Mbps line can download over 1500GB/month. Now IF that person is constantly downloading during peak hours, he is costing the company money (increasing peak Mbps). Switch that around to where he is downloading exclusively between 11pm-8am(off peak on most systems) he is not causing congestion, not costing any additional hardware costs, and not costing any additional transit costs, during this time he can download over 500GB/month.
If they would actually do something to address the issues(congestion, hardware costs, transit costs, all Mbps based) then they would have something. Comcast's protocol agnostic throttle during peak hours actually does just that. Their 250GB cap has (at least so far) been handled in a very smart manner. They are ignoring the users that are exceeding the cap and NOT downloading during peak hours (these users are not cause a problem). The are going after the users who are exceeding the cap and ARE downloading during peak hours(these users are causing a problem).
A straight monthly cap does not address the problem. A user on a 5Mbps tier downloading exclusively between 6pm-10pm can download 28 days a month and stay under the 250GB cap. But at the same time can use over 1/8th the available bandwidth on his channel. Considering that there are a LOT more than eight users assigned to each channel, you can see where the GB/month fails.
reply
anon @ 29th Apr 02:57PM:
Re: Metered billing
How is this a good idea? and what justifies this? Sorry but you are a sheep following the Sheppard without even realizing it.
reply
fiberguy @ 29th Apr 02:59PM:
Re: Cable, the only industy that goes backwards!
said by jadebangle :
The point is it has always been unlimited since year 2000 or before that... now all of a sudden they decide to add meter to make more money or get us to pay a hell of a lot more.
its that simple
no need to any silly analogy
Yup! and all the sudden there is Youtube, Amazon Video services, iTunes, Hulu, and several voice services out there not only taking up bandwidth, but launching an attack on the very provider they are competing with.
Ultimately, the cost of internet will and SHOULD go up as people push more through it and get more out of it - that is part of supply and demand which creates value pricing.
NO ONE, not even the dems in power, are going to allow a corporation to diminish to nothing and lose money in order to fly by nights to come in and reduce their revenue while ordering cable and phone to keep their internet prices rock bottom.. it won't ever happen. So, get used to the cost of internet going up as its inevitable. Still, I believe that the flat monthly rate needs to go up and not a metered billing.
I believe they think they can sell a metered billing plan over a rate increase easier which is silly. Flat rate affects everyone while metered billing will affect heavier users. However, the reason you won't see a flat rate bill increase is becuase of that thing everyone wants so badly.. competition.
In order to compete, your BASE rates have to look best as that's what attracts a potential customer over anything else. You get about 5 seconds of someone's time to sell a product so price is king. In the name of competition, you have to have a lower price. It's the same with phone and why they have 20 different "fees" which are required to provide your base service, but somehow are itemized outside their base rate. It's better to market a $14 dial tone over a $25 dial tone.
The consumer IS going to have to expect internet to rise. MOST providers have not raised the price of internet in years - which is a mistake and now they are paying for it.
Simply raise the cost of all internet tiers $5 and this problem would go away. Also, include a small raise in price each year or two. This will solve the problem of more bandwidth heavy content that is more and more popular, address the cost of living (ie: stop using a video service to prop up a data service), and will address the need to spend more money and invest into the network for upgrades TO handle those management issues.
While everyone is still focused on the billing by the byte stories, aka mass confusion, the real changes are being made in the background.
This is all a cat and mouse game.. the people are the mice and the providers are the cats. Most mice are totally stupid, but not all. Don't be a stupid mouse.
reply
Lazlow @ 29th Apr 03:00PM:
Re: Metered billing
me1212
That is just it. Off peak downloading costs the ISPs zero (0) extra. It does not matter if we are talking about 1GB or 1TB, as long as they are not downloaded during peak hours. So IF they were going to bill based on 2X actual cost of those GB, I would agree (they get nothing, 2X0=0), but they will not go for that.
reply
Desdinova @ 29th Apr 03:02PM:
Re: Metered billing
"Nothing in an unlimited resourse"
Not true. Greed and stupidity are truly limitless. Though I'm not sure I'd call 'em a resource... :D
reply
fiberguy @ 29th Apr 03:05PM:
Re: Low caps.. not a good idea
said by jadebangle :said by HiDesert :
Lets say that Warner did implement their crazy meter plan. What would they have done in markets that had heavy competition? Relax the rules and pick and choose or adjust those caps accordingly? Or face a mass reduction in subs...
apparently they want all of their customer to cancel internet and use television as the only means of entertainment...
as well as pay per view or PPV
That's exactly what they want...
they could careless if no one subscribed to their shittycrappypathethiclosers metered internet
No it's not.. about video. They make more money on internet, per subscriber, than the base video subscriber.
Example: Basic cable just pay bills and just about breaks even. They DO make money on ad revenue, however.
@home service in the days, it cost $7 per sub to provide service to the home. The rest was profit.
What it IS about is a dwindling subscriber base to video while people keeping just internet at a low cost. You can't have a large number of people drop video and keep internet at $50 a month and sustain your business. AND, those customer that DO drop the video bundle portion SHOULD see a significant raise in the price of internet. Funny, though, it's those very customers that cry about the "penalty" for not having video (instead of it being a "discount" FOR having video) that cry the loudest when they have to pay more for just internet. Terminology is important here, and these feel good "I'm being penalized, it's not a discount" people need to evolve or die and turn to oil. It's time to live in the real world and realize that it costs to provide not only the service you get today, but the upgrade they demand in the future. It's one reason I don't shed a tear for people who cry that internet costs $42 a month. Personally, it should be more about the $79 a month range for flat service.
Cablevision has it right. $99 for a 100 meg line uncapped. That's how it should be. It's an honest price for a valuable service.
reply
fiberguy @ 29th Apr 03:06PM:
Re: Where's my metered TV?
If you are asking this question, you should take a simple course in economics and business.. you'd have your answer instead of posting silly questions.
reply
fiberguy @ 29th Apr 03:07PM:
Re: Will it hurt sites as well as consumers?
I don't agree with metered billing - make that clear off the bat.
But how does simply going metered make you a utility? That's absurd.
reply
jkeelsnc @ 29th Apr 03:19PM:
Telcos/Cable etc
The more the cables and telcos charge and meter the less I will use their service. It is simple as that.
For instance, I could get cable where I live. However, I'd have to pay $50/mo to get a bunch of other channels I have no interest in just to get the 2 or 3 that interest me at all. Added to that fact is that the quality of TV programming has gone down the tubes in recent years. So, as of now I don't subscribe to cable. Charter probably doesn't like it but oh well. So, instead I invest the extra $$$ into internet and get a faster internet connection.
However, same thing if they start metering and capping I will just reduce my speed plan from 6mpbs down to 3mpbs or even 1.5mpbs and even just use my internet less and read books more.
Thats how I handle it and its exactly what Charter and AT&T don't want. Too bad. Its my money and when I have a limited amount of it I will apportion it according to my interests and needs in an efficient way. If they can't meet that then I simply find ways to cut out services and reduce my bills.
The same companies wind up hurting for their implementation of these ideas. For instance, that is money every month that charter could have from me. Instead, they won't offer me an ala carte package or increase the quality of TV programming out there so oh well. Same with AT&T. If they charge too much and I feel I am not getting enough for my hard earned $$$ I will simply cut back or eliminate spending to that company. *shrugs*
I am sure some CEO or executive at the AT&T HQ is fussing and fuming and whining about people like me. However, unless they are paying my bills (or my salary) they will not get any sympathies. *yawn*
reply
fiberguy @ 29th Apr 03:20PM:
Re: Cable is the new PSTN
said by bngdup :
The Cable network is becoming the new PSTN. They are just refusing to compete and are instead counting on their monopoly power to implement these new metered plans in order to stave off internet video adoption for a few more years.
This absolutely silly. How are they becoming the PSTN? I can't even begin to see your point as you don't even back it up.. and second, there is NO requirement to "compete".. they have a right to die if their competition DOES compete when they don't.. which isn't the case.
I can only hope FTTH will help change the minds of cable companies but I doubt it.
A pipe to the home doesn't change anything. Fiber is not an end to all problems. I can slap a meter on a fiber line just as fast as twisted pair, coax, hybrid system, or satellite.
Unless the government steps in and takes a strong stand to protect consumers interest in these matters the free market is going to have a field day with this country.
Government stepping in... Name anything comparable to this that to govt has ever stepped in on and did anything good. I'll give you one.. the Tecom act back in the 1990's. it caused rates to GO UP! Govt isn't the answer at all. And, a free market doesn't run amock with out the help of the consumer. The free market isn't Business against business. It's business to consumer. The consumer is the other half of the free market, or did you like so many forget that. The problem is that the PEOPLE will not stand up. They're too hooked on their services like drugs to say "no" and cancel their services in mass - therefore, in the free market battle, the business side wins! You want better treatment and prices? .. be willing to give up your services for a while. Free market competition is no more than the 2 party political system. When you hate the provider you're with, you go to another one to keep service. What you do is endorse THEIR bad behaviors instead. Then, that company says "we're doing something right, becuase we're getting the votes".. just as with politicians. There's always 3rd parties, but no one will ever move towards them becuase there is risk and cost involved.
People are stupid.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want a socialized state owned network but I do want laws in place to stop the collusion between the dominant ISP's here from screwing us over.
This statement made no sense. You want govt to step in. Government IS socialization - period. It's a society rule. Capitalism comes from the social government. Just becuase the ISPs are doing similar things does not mean they are in collusion. Right now, its just your opinion, and in mine, it's misguided.
I would also like to see an end to the lobbying against small town governments from setting up their own FTTH services to compete with lazy incumbents who don't want to build out in those towns.
So you're for an end to the 1st amendment protection then, right? Lobbying is not illegal and never will be so long as we have the constitution. They CAN, however, stop the gifts and the amount of money allowed during lobby efforts, mostly the gifts. You, just like paid lobbyists, are MORE THAN WELCOME to lobby your reps.. if you want to put an end to lobbying, you put an end to your own voice outside of a vote on election day.
Sorry, but I had to tear this post apart.. I'm sure you just want the "madness" to stop, as we all do. But the way you're putting it forward makes no sense.. it's dangerous and NO WAY in hell would I support you on the surface.
reply
me1212 @ 29th Apr 03:20PM:
Re: Metered billing
I do not know if I understand what you are saying. I meant 2x what ever 1GB cost them, not what it costs them extra. Or am I misunderstanding you?
reply
MSauk @ 29th Apr 03:20PM:
Re: Will it hurt sites as well as consumers?
because just like a utility they are pricing their products off of my usage. That to me is a utility. If I use it less my bill will be less, use it more pay more.
--
801 Images
reply
me1212 @ 29th Apr 03:22PM:
Re: Metered billing
I know it does not sound good(neither do as one is a lie and the other is just rude) but at least have the balls to tell people you want to skrew them over in stead of lie to them saying it is good for them.
reply
jkeelsnc @ 29th Apr 03:31PM:
Caps, etc
I guess my point in the last post is that speaking with our money will show them more than any legislation in Washington.
If we spend less and even stop buying their service they will either have to give us what we want or they will fold. Its as simple as that. Thats how the free market is supposed to work.
I bitch on these forums too but the difference is when something is too much or I don't like it I reduce my service or eliminate it and figure its to hell with the company if they can't figure out how to meet my needs at a price I can afford.
reply
Lazlow @ 29th Apr 03:53PM:
Re: Metered billing
1GB downloaded during non peak hours cost them nothing. The extra part is referring to the fact that they have to have the equipment and transit access in place. Basically they have costs every month, even if nobody downloads anything.
reply
dobby10 @ 29th Apr 04:00PM:
Re: Cable, the only industy that goes backwards!
said by maartena :
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, back in the 30ties people would pay a fixed fee for water, because they didn't have the capability to meter every house yet. It wasn't until the 50ies that all houses started to receive meters and individual water bills.
Back in the 30ties and 40ties, GAS was unmetered, and you would pay a flat fee for gas. Same thing, sometime in the 50ies gas meters were installed everywhere and you started to pay per cubic foot of gas used.
The difference however: You pay about $5 per month to keep your water line connected if you aren't using a drop.... you are still paying $40 or more for your internet even if you don't use it.
Water - Some areas pay by what they use, others do not. In my area we don't pay water bills. It is part of property taxes, and it does not go up or down depending on how much I use.
Also to touch on the utilities. When there is a limited amount of something then you pay for it. There are so many phone systems and open switches available for phone calls, it is now unlimited for $25. Sure you can still pay $17 for a metered line, but is it worth it?
Gas is obviously limited, as is electricity. The cable companies are now seeing that the Internet is limited, but as long as they keep building it up, it really won't become limited, just like phone lines are really no longer limited. How often do you hear "All circuits are busy" now-a-days? It is like hearing a busy tone in 1990 when dialing up to the net. But the dial-up companies improved their phone lines and by 2000 you heard no busy signals as they had multiple ports for each line.
reply
anon @ 29th Apr 04:09PM:
Caps
this whole idea of metered billing is dumb I'm not staying with any ISP who has such ridicules caps. its like att telling me I need to pay by the call for my home phone it's always been unlimited for local calling (least all my life) and hell even long distance is unlimited at a reasonable monthly price without having to switch to some business line sure they offer a metered rate for people that don't use the phone much but it's not forced on anyone. And caps as low as 1gb? lol I pull more than that on my iPhone.
reply
me1212 @ 29th Apr 04:18PM:
Re: Metered billing
Oh ok, Then y not just have cap during peak hours? Even hughes has a cap free time at like 1am, could the ISPs not have a ca free time during non peak hours? Or during non peak hours just charge 10 cents per GB and in peak hours 2x whatever it costs them? Then 1TB on non peak hours would cost the costumer $100 + $10 for the 5m connection. I still like FiOS and cable vision better, no caps , and FiOS can stay that way to hurt cablecos and CV stays that way to protect it self from FiOS. Plus I heard verizon owns something that makes them make money when you up-load/down-load on their network, IDK if it is true or not.
reply
fiberguy @ 29th Apr 04:40PM:
Re: Will it hurt sites as well as consumers?
That doesn't make it a utility - at all. I pay for tanning by the use. I pay for bottled water by the case or by the bottle. I pay for the movies I rent from the store. I pay for the gas I use in my truck, and gas isn't a utility. I pay for the gym based on the amount of time I want to use it.
All this means is consumption based billing.
With out being a total a*s, where do people come up with the notion that all things that sound alike, must be alike? Your example as to why is certainly not rare. These things are posted on BBR all the time that since something is "similar" to something else that the same rules have to apply.. certainly not the case.
reply
MSauk @ 29th Apr 04:51PM:
Re: Will it hurt sites as well as consumers?
I believe that just like a utility broadband has went from a want to a need.
--
801 Images
reply
Lazlow @ 29th Apr 05:02PM:
Re: Metered billing
If you had a cap just on set hours, more people would start downloading outside those hours and that would then be the peak hours (what isps actual pay for). This is why the proticol agnostic throttle during peak time works better. It only throttles when the system is under heavy load (peak hours). Since any downloads done during non peak hours do not cost the ISP anything, how can you justify charging for those GB at all?
reply
me1212 @ 29th Apr 05:05PM:
Re: Metered billing
Do to the fact that they are not charging $40 for 5m, just $10.
I do like the throttle ides MUCH better.
reply
Lazlow @ 29th Apr 05:13PM:
Re: Metered billing
So you are ok with them charging extra for something that costs them nothing?
reply
me1212 @ 29th Apr 05:25PM:
Re: Metered billing
No, but they will do it anyway, I am just trying to find the least bad way.
And the ISPs still have to pay for their equiptment.
reply
anon @ 29th Apr 05:31PM:
Then meter cable tv
If they are going to meter internet usuage the same should apply for cable tv too
reply
IT Guy @ 29th Apr 06:01PM:
Re: RE: Metered Billing / Caps
I agree completely.
reply
Lazlow @ 29th Apr 06:43PM:
Re: Cable, the only industy that goes backwards!
Fiberguy
Tmobile just switch my plan from 400 minute daytime, unlimited nights to unlimited. No change in price.
You are also forgetting that transit costs are rapidly dropping. Q2 2008 average transit cost paid by ISPs in major US cities was down to $10-$12 /Mbps/Month, some companies are now down to less than $4/Mbps/Month. CV has already stated that switching over to D3 will cost them between $70-$120 per customer. So the hardware costs (per customer) are really not that significant. Just look at TWC's 10K, revenues for HSI were $4.2 Billion while costs of revenues were $146 Million.
reply
fiberguy @ 29th Apr 07:26PM:
Re: Will it hurt sites as well as consumers?
said by MSauk :
I believe that just like a utility broadband has went from a want to a need.
Broadband still is not a "need"...
Broadband is not needed to sustain life.
Broadband is not a requirement in the home.
Broadband can be lived with out.
Broadband can be found in libraries for free. You don't HAVE to use it at home.
No one "needs" broadband. AND, if it's a "need" for work, then it's a business tool.
You can still do most everything with out the internet, and, if you REALLY need to do something that can only be done online, you can go to a library to do it. Is that "convenient"...? No. But it's available to everyone. And, for things like booking airline tickets, and checking bank accounts and paying bills that are free on line vs paying a small fee to do it over the phone.. well, that's a decision left made to the individual.
Until the internet becomes a life line service, I personally don't believe that it's a "need".. Hell, people even live with out a telephone and THAT is a utility.
reply
MSauk @ 29th Apr 07:30PM:
Re: Will it hurt sites as well as consumers?
Well "personally" I disagree. I believe that we have become a society that relies on broadband just like we do other utilities.
I believe it is a need. Again it is a personal opinion, just as yours is.
--
801 Images
reply
fiberguy @ 29th Apr 07:32PM:
Re: Cable, the only industy that goes backwards!
Please don't use the T-Mobile example, although it is an example, it's weak. T-Mobile is only offering that plan to limited customers on invitation only.
Transit costs, in mobile phone service, still have nothing to do with how they sell their services. Like the great broadband debate in management, pricing of cell phones as a metered service or high dollar monthly ticket is about traffic management OR the high bills will allow them to expand greater to meet the demand.
If they were to all start offering unlimited service for $50 or $60 a month, the network would be overloaded over night! Just look at what happened to AOL back when they went flat rate. GREAT! No one could get a dial up line as they were jammed by everyone staying connected and walking away from the net.
Also, speed, as you know, does not directly relate with how much data transfer they consume. Some say consumers will turn their computers on 24/7 and some say they will get things done quicker and get off. What does drive the transfer are NEW higher impact applications such as video.
Also, you're looking at an MSO for numbers.. The balance of cost centers are skewed. They don't necessarily cost out their products correctly as they use one service to subsidize another. Looks great on the books though.
reply
fiberguy @ 29th Apr 07:48PM:
Re: Will it hurt sites as well as consumers?
That's fine.. however, while you say we "rely" on it.. how so? I use it, I love it, but I CAN live with out it.. it would suck! Therefore, in my eyes, it makes my life easy.
I do use it for work, as in my example. This is why I'm willing to pay a premium for it as that investment comes back to me in the form of income. Otherwise, the internet is something that makes life easier and convenient. We as a society are not guaranteed the right to an easy life or conveneince. Hell, we're not even guaranteed the right to health care. It would be in our best interest to see that people can get and keep health insurance, however, it still to this day is not a "right" either.
And I don't believe "society" relies on it.. there are still many people that don't have it and get along just fine.
reply
Lazlow @ 29th Apr 07:54PM:
Re: Cable, the only industy that goes backwards!
Fiberguy
ISPs (I referred to them in paragraph 2 above) have been offering unlimited for a long time, for the most part they have been able to handle the load. I also think that the Japanese numbers are probably pretty applicable. They have had 100Mbps service for quite a while and they are only seeing a very small percentage of users downloading over 800GB/month (probably on the same order as we are seeing here now).
As far as tmobile, pretty much anybody who has not received a disconnect notice got the invitation. Even my little brother, who has been disconnected for failure to pay multiple times, received the invitation. The vast majority of people only talk so much, even if it is free to talk more.
If TWC had been trying to skew its numbers, it would have been to make it's HSI side to look bad(instead of good) to use as an excuse for going to metered billing. The apples to apples percent margins for their HSI is MUCH better than for their video products.
reply
franknalco @ 29th Apr 08:02PM:
Metered already in CA
»www.sanbrunocable.com/internet.html
Standard monthly rate of only $32.95
FREE installation & FREE modem with cable service.
Minimum rate of 512 Kbps up and maximum 12 Mbps down. Other levels of service available. Certain restrictions may apply. Note: Monthly bandwidth usage allowances. Level 1 - 50 GB, Level 2 - 100 GB, Level 3 - 150 GB 25 cent charge per GB over allowed bandwidth will be applied to billing statement.
reply
anon @ 29th Apr 09:48PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
jac74 @ 29th Apr 09:52PM:
Cap Crap
I say we put Glenn Britt in a locked room with NO windows, and just enough food for him to survive for 2 weeks, and tell him the food in the room needs to last him 30 days. If it doesn't we will take away 90% of his salary.... perhaps he would then get the message..... although I doubt it. Here is what I assume (Assumptions are bad) that this is a "somewhat" educated guy... I would love for him to explain to a room full of users why WE want caps.... are you serious? "Customers want caps?" I guess I have been "mis-understanding" all the media lately.... hmm.. sign me up for double the price.... this guy is a Douche Nozzle!!!
reply
Sammer @ 29th Apr 11:48PM:
Re: Government Regulation Now.
While too much regulation can be bad for business, if this is what the cable companies want, internet services with metered billing or overage charges must be regulated as a public utility with strict network neutrality provisions with business "firewalls" to protect potential competition. The government must protect the public from cable companies that would use metered billing or low caps with overage charges to prevent competition for their video services, stifle internet innovation and price gouge.
reply
anon @ 30th Apr 08:19AM:
Re: Low caps.. not a good idea
So if $99 for 100 Meg uncapped line is fair, why is $29.99 for a measely 8 Meg uncapped line, asking something for nothing? I say if 100 Meg for 100 dollars I should only have to pay $8 for 8 Meg.
reply
bngdup @ 30th Apr 09:38AM:
Re: Cable is the new PSTN
Wow ok you need to lay off the coffee for a second and try and understand what I meant.
"Government IS socialization" - Wow so breaking up a monopoly is socialism? I did not know that but thanks for educating me.
When I said that I would like to see an end to the lobbying I did not mean that the goverment needed to pass a law or make anything illegal. I would just like to see the companies try and actually COMPETE with these public offerings instead of using the legal system to prevent their existence. THAT is socialism, not the FREE MARKET. It's like how social conservatives want to ban anything they don't like from TV instead of changing the channel. I don't want to end lobbying, I would just like to see the companies put it to better use VOLUNTARILY.
"Government stepping in... Name anything comparable to this that to govt has ever stepped in on and did anything good. "
Ever hear of the Carterphone decision? or OSHA, or minimum wage?
As to my original argument, the cable companies are not required to compete no. However internet use in general is exploding all over the globe and our country is falling behind global rankings faster and faster. I personally believe its in all of our bests interests to use goverment to foster MORE free market competition for broadband instead of just doing nothing and letting Comcast or AT&T decide what reasonable network management means.
Turn off Hannity for a minute and try to realize that Russians aren't coming. I'm only suggesting ways to help us ALL.
reply
fiberguy @ 30th Apr 11:11AM:
Re: Cable, the only industy that goes backwards!
Well, I don't agree at all that TWC is having a bandwidth issues at all. Then again, maybe they are, who knows. They have been known to allow servers on their lines.. maybe they have a lot of them. Maybe there's something to network monitoring and control. Anyway..
TWC has always priced their services pretty high of the major providers. I do believe this is a cash grab for them. or, I also believe that in a hard time, they are looking for ways to get more money to invest back into their network.
Its hard to say with out speculating, for anyone.
Oh, and for internet, I will NEVER entertain what other countries are doing compared to us. There are just WAY too many differences in their overall makeup as compared to ours to do so. No two economies and land make-ups are alike to be able to even have an honest comparison debate.
reply
fiberguy @ 30th Apr 11:28AM:
Re: Cable is the new PSTN
said by bngdup :
Wow ok you need to lay off the coffee for a second and try and understand what I meant.
Turn off Hannity for a minute and try to realize that Russians aren't coming. I'm only suggesting ways to help us ALL.
I don't drink coffee and I certainly don't pay attention to that Leprechaun.
Your views are very shallow and small minded if you think that becuase of what I said I must be a Hannity lover. I think for myself, thank you, and I could really care less to hear what a loud blabber mouth out for ratings and money has to say... get it?? .. and I don't drink coffee.
With that said, reading your reply, and reading your second message, you've either explained yourself better, or you totally changed your original emotional fed post. I tend to believe there is a little of both going on here.
You make some pretty strong calls in the first post and then backed down on the second. I just respond to what I read like anyone else becuase that's all I can go off of.. I don't know you and you don't know me.
OSHA and Min Wage are irrelevant in this discussion as they can't be compared.
For right now, YES, I believe that it's okay for Comcast and ATT to decide what reasonable network management means ON THEIR NETWORKS. People like you forget that 1) broadband is not a right. 2) changing how they sell broadband is acceptable no matter how much an opportunistic senator/rep may decide his public outcry will benefit his re-election. Internet has value on it and it costs money to operate it. Business has a right to make money on it so long as it's not overly oppressive AND no matter how "unpopular" it may be to the public. 3) Many disagree that government needs to be involved in everything we do. Often, they make things worse. I will agree with Regan... Government isn't the answer, it's the problem. However, I do agree with some oversight in a monopoly market.
There is plenty of room for new providers to come in and wire a town. However, there is a reason no one takes the plunge and makes the investment.. it's too risky and when someone does, they often never make it and wind up going out of business. There just isn't enough customers in a city to support that many providers for a wireline service. You'd have to pass enough homes to be able to make it worth your while, and be able to penetrate enough of that market to stay viable. You get too many operators and you've now flooded the market.
Even when government steps in, such as they did with cable back in the 90's, they set a formula, not direct rules, at which a provider can operate. Their formula, so you know, raised the rates of almost 80% of all customers across the country.
And, I'll counter your Hannity and coffee comments.. stop spending so much time at Starbucks, the fumes are getting to you, and by all means, STOP listening to Pelosi.. besides, she's too busy trying to save the world to really know what's she's saying.
reply
fiberguy @ 30th Apr 11:33AM:
Re: Low caps.. not a good idea
said by ZachAttack :
So if $99 for 100 Meg uncapped line is fair, why is $29.99 for a measely 8 Meg uncapped line, asking something for nothing? I say if 100 Meg for 100 dollars I should only have to pay $8 for 8 Meg.
You're posing a question like I'm the one making the decisions, which I am not.
However, I think my original post would have addressed that.
Think about it.. what's the current sweet spot in sales? .. the $99 triple play. What all comes in that triple play? Video, Phone, Internet.
What comes in the $99 internet service? ... Internet.
What did I tell you about the cost to provide internet? BIG profit.
Take a $99 internet service alone, how much profit?
There's your answer...
When you have several services in the same triple play, you have less profit from that bundle. And, further, who's selling 8 meg service, in cable, for $29.99 other than a "promotional" price, which isn't the price of the product anyway.
reply
bngdup @ 30th Apr 11:58AM:
Re: Cable is the new PSTN
Yeh the Hannity quote was a cheapshot. Basically you sound like a friend of mine who pigeonholes anyone that questions putting any restriction at all on any Big Business as some pseudo intellectual sitting on a MacBook at Starbucks browsing their collection of Obama Wallpaper and reading the dailykos. Government is not always the answer, in fact the story today shows Minnesota trying to block gambling websites which is a good example of Government not being the answer. The whole thing is you can't just make blanket statements about Goverment not being the answer and then cite some random example. There are any number of bad Free Market examples I could use in a counter argument but again thats the wrong argument to make. Its about looking at things on a case by case basis not making overly generic statements like "Government is never the answer". Really? Never the answer to anything?
I couldnt care less about Pelosi but I fail to see what harm it would cause to have the goverment assist, not require by law, the ISP's of america in building out to underserved areas that they currently avoid due to ROI ratios. If you are implying that this would not help business or residents then we disagree there.
You seem to have the impression that Major ISP's don't collude with each other to limit your choices, don't take any steps to limit online video adoption
reply
fiberguy @ 30th Apr 02:48PM:
Re: Cable is the new PSTN
Online video, so you know, is a threat - yes. It threatens not only the stability of an operating network model that we're built on, BUT, it also threatens the price of your internet service as well.
You can't be on the side of video on the internet and cheap internet prices at the same time.
Part of the internet portion is subsidized by other cost centers of the MSO be it telco or cable. This is why there is that "bundle discount" or as some people call it wrongly, "penalty for not having video" fee. People need to wise up and wake up to reality or they will have these ulcers more and more.
It COSTS MONEY to run a network as large as these.. If a flood of people went to the net for video and abandoned linear video service all together, the price of the internet is only going to rise. FURTHER, the cost of providing television is going to rise as well. Ultimately, when you serve out less of a product and have to remain available to the masses, less people will pay more.
Further, what you and others don't realize, I believe, is that much of the content on line is being offered to the public by direct channels from Hollywood. So you also have MORE Hollywood control over content. Is that what you guys want?
I could go on about this, but won't.
As for government "assisting".. lol .. Haven't you noticed the level of "assisting" they've done over the years? Their grip gets tighter and tighter with ever assist. And I will tell you WHY I don't want their assistance in this.
The government FORCED their assistance on some banks recently.. those that didn't need it.. those smaller banks that had no bad assets.. those banks that had clean books. By methods of EXTORTION, and at the help of Obama and his clan, FORCED them to take money, about 2% worth, and while they were at it, decided to demand control of the bank for their 2%.. show me where I can buy in at 2% and have control please cuz I want that deal. Oh, and if they didn't take the money they didn't need, they would have triggered an audit for them not taking the money which would have cost millions of dollars, taken years, and ruined both faith and trust in the bank and could have ruined them. It's called extortion.
I don't need the govt taking MY money that I pay in, and buying up a cable company or phone company just to serve rural areas with petty cash as their justification.
If you'd like to me cite more examples, I'll be happy to. However, right now, THIS VERY MOMENT, I have NO desire for government to 'help' things out.
To be honest, you want to know how they could have saved this economy and in a hurry? Put a moratorium on the illegal income tax collection for 12 months. Let the people keep that extra 38% of their checks and spend the money themselves in the economy, OR, put it in the banks, who needed deposits. They would have had to borrow FAR less money, the banks that is, and the govt' could have printed their monopoly money to pay it's own debt for a year. Basically, our money is our money, the government can print their own. Instead, they flooded the market with monopoly money.. (Oh, by the way, thank you to each and everyone of you for the $8,000 I just got for buying a house... there is no house warming party.. I picked up a steal for someone's shattered life on a $380K home for just $191K... )
This is what we get for government assistance. Rural broadband is the least of our concerns - seriously. I can't even believe people are crying for this. I'd MUCH rather have an auto industry saved and unions put in their place (which contributed GREATLY to the demise) rather than some body who CHOSE to live the simple life outside the 'big crowded city' getting broadband off the tax dime. Oh, and for the government helping the auto industry, and the unions who pushed these companies books into the red with excessive demands, the very union is getting a large chunk of Chrysler! ONLY IN AMERICA! Bravo!
I'm sorry that I disagree with you, but I'm not a broadband druggie that sits back and worries about the state of broadband. Its there, it's available, its MORE than affordable.. but, FAR before broadband is available, I'd rather see education and health care tackled.. rural dwellers can get their porn on dial up, OR, make decisions that affect their lives like the rest of us. I'd LOVE to live in the country, however, when searching for a home, guess what one of the requirements was? .. to be connected to broadband. Hrmmm.. I made a "choice".. so can everyone else.
Sorry.. that's my "draconian" feelings.
And no, I don't think there is a major attack on people and I don't believe that ISPs collude with each other - there is currently no evidence of that, AND UNTIL THERE IS, I will continue not to believe it - period. I don't live my life on theory of the "what if" and "possibility" that may exists... I don't believe in conspiracy until there is credible and convincing evidence as many people on BBR enjoy doing.
There is more to live than the internet.
reply
mc5w @ 1st May 02:10AM:
Metered Billing
Back when telephone and telegraph lines cost a lot of money metered billing did makes sense. The companies had to put a price on communications because resources were relatively scarce and expensive. Copper T carrier and later on fiber optic brought down the price of construction and operation and increased capacity to the point where flat rate billing makes more sense. This is because when capacity is cheap enough and plentiful enough it actually costs a significant amount of money to do metering.
In Chicago in the 1950s and earlier any telephone call that was outside of your own central office had to pay message units read nonitemized toll charges. This was also true in a lot of other cities. When fiber optic lines went in the telephone companies eventually realized that they could LOWER rates and make more money if they stopped spending money on metering telephone calls.
Similarly, the creators of ARPAnet ( what Internet was before it went commercial ) realized that metering would use too much precious computer capacity. So, each member institution paid for its share of equipment and lines and they ran unmetered. Computers were so expensive back then that the traffic was limited anyways.
Fortunately, cheap fiber optic capacity came just in time for when the cost of computers came down to something low enough that even people who were on a small budget could afford a computer.
I do not think that bandwidth hogging applications ( other than spammers ) will ever be a problem because the number of viruses have increased to the point that you need a 3 billiion instruction per second computer just to download email and still pictures. Of course, a lot of security vulnerabilites in Windows and other software are purposely there so that the H-1B visa people can extort green cards from Uncle Sam. The computer industry wanted people who were required to work for the same company for 6 years and they they got what they wished for. If a company in a better country than the U.S. ( and such a country does not exist ) had that kind of a job for me I would do what I could to extort a green card too.
reply
Mark F @ 1st May 03:02AM:
Re: Metered billing
Having a cap will hurt more than just users. It will hurt content providers, both paid (such as Netflix, Amazon, itunes, CinemaNow) and free (such as Youtube, AOL, Hulu, ABC).
If people balk at metered billing, having low caps and paying higher fees and overage charges, they might cut down on online movies and TV. Which could hinder the growth of such online content providers.
Mark F.
reply
bngdup @ 1st May 09:53AM:
Re: Cable is the new PSTN
Yes there is more to life than the internet. You're the one writing essay responses on some internet forum and you're telling ME that? This is an internet forum , and the topic was related to the internet hence i was merely staying on topic.
Listen, clearly we simply believe in two conflicting ideologies. You believe that Reaganomics is the answer to all of life's problems because you took what you wanted from the "system" and now want to give as little back as possible. You don't want the big bad government taking any of your money. Thats fine. You can keep it. The rest of us will at least make an attempt to build a better country, even if it fails i'll know I tried. There is more to life than money. I know plenty of miserable people who have plenty of it.
You also assume I am a person that wants my goverment to solve all my problems because I pointed out that it could assist in one aspect of my life. No but I do believe that the internet is becoming a critical resource and just like water and power and while its not a right, I don't see that as limiting our ability to foster its growth.
I know it costs money to run and build these networks out. What did you think I meant by assist? Flowers and good intentions?
And if you really believe that companies other than Fannie and Freddy fell because of government regulations forcing them to loan to people with bad credit and not their own irresponsibility than I don't know what to say to you.
Both Private Businesses and Government are run by Human Beings. Both are equally corrupt in their own ways. You dont want to pay taxes? Well then I ask who should pay taxes if not YOU? And if nobody should pay taxes at all then are you saying we don't need a government? Do you REALLY believe that would minimize corruption and greed?
reply
anon @ 1st May 09:58AM:
Re: Metered billing
i guess you dont read the bible it said in the book of psalm that earth was not made for nothing but to be for ever so how in the world will exist forever if the sun will die one day
reply
namida12 @ 1st May 11:40AM:
Re: Metered billing
Baineschile,
A company that needs to pay its stock holders a better than average dividend, and large salaries & unreasonable bonuses to the top level of employees needs to generate increasing revenue.
Quote: "Competition, or the lack of it, goes a long way to explaining why the fees are higher in the United States. There is less competition in the United States than in many other countries.
Broadband already has the highest profit margins of any product cable companies offer. Like any profit-maximizing business would do, they set prices in relation to other providers and market demand rather than based on costs."
Fast ISP $20 per connection upgrade.
»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/0···er-home/
Quote:"In Japan, broadband service running at 150 megabits per second (Mbps) costs $60 a month. The fastest service available now in the United States is 50 Mbps at a price of $90 to $150 a month.
In London, $9 a month buys 8 Mbps service. In New York, broadband starts at $20 per month, for 1 Mbps."
Broadband Gap
»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/1···-faster/
Why Do They Have More Fiber?
»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/1···e-fiber/
and the follow up...
»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/1···e-issue/
Metering is only a ruse to get higher profits in the US from the existing infrastructure. If metering becomes an acceptable business practice, then government needs to step in and separate content delivery from the infrastructure owner. In addition DSL suppliers should boost the speeds to all apartments/condos instead of trying to supply suburbia.
I do not want big government, but splitting Verizon from FiOS, or Comcast & Time Warner from their cable divisions would stop the metering ruse. Separating the infrastructure from content delivery would reduce the consumer cost with increased competition for access to the cabled or wired delivery point, and the CEO's already rubbing their palms together in anticipation of greater bonus generated by metering bytes would ultimately be disappointed.
We are only voicing our written opinions in this forum. I like the free enterprise system, but the Cable, DSL, and Satellite companies have banded together and are price fixing. Price fixing by assuring each other of one major supplier of content/infrastructure will be the majority supplier of areas, rather than being competitive with price and content choice as the free enterprise system is designed to work...
My three cents on metered billing as additional profits for the most profitable service a cable or Telco has...
JR
reply
namida12 @ 1st May 11:50AM:
Re: Metered already in CA
What are the DSL & Satellite rates? I presume Sanbrunocable has an exclusive area contract with the local government.
Bet the CEO along with other board members are already rubbing their palms together in anticipation of larger annual bonus... Internet is already the most profitable part of a cable companies offered services, and to add tiered levels is ok, but 25 cents per gig over the limit, that is consumer theft...
JR
reply
namida12 @ 1st May 12:01PM:
Re: Metered Billing
mc5w,
Great history lesson, I enjoyed your post until the last paragraph. A reasonable intelligent computer users would have a dual booting computer and use a non-Microsoft operating system to surf the net and read their e-mail in a text only format.
Have you viewed this collection of facts?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY
20 percent of India's honor students is a greater number of students than the US has in its school system.
JR
reply
JunjiHiroma @ 1st May 12:08PM:
The Cable companies are FORCING you to accept UBB
"If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are saying is total crap." - Hitler
So the cable companies are lying repedally so they can get you to agree to this UBB crap...That just BLOWS my mind >.>
"Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
reply
Matt @ 1st May 12:32PM:
Re: Metered billing
said by elcubanito :
i guess you dont read the bible it said in the book of psalm that earth was not made for nothing but to be for ever so how in the world will exist forever if the sun will die one day
The bible is wrong.
reply
fiberguy @ 1st May 11:58PM:
Re: Cable is the new PSTN
I skimmed your post and picked up on your tone.. to be honest, I didn't read it.. not worth my time, sorry.
You assumed and made a ton of accusations as fact about me to whom you know nothing about.
I hope you enjoyed the typing test.
reply
franknalco @ 5th May 06:44PM:
Re: Metered already in CA
"Given the City’s intention to offer a value oriented service the product pricing favors the consumer. The current Expanded Basic service rate at $46.47 is nearly 20% below the market rate for comparable service. The current rate for the 10 Mbps Internet service is $29.95, which is unquestionably the best value in the entire San Francisco Bay Area. The current rate for the fully loaded Digital Phone service is $39.95, which includes unlimited local, unlimited long distance to anywhere in the U.S., a full set of calling features, and unlimited international calling to over 20 countries that are included in the plan. All of these services are available at further discounts when purchased through bundled packages of Cable, Internet and Phone services. "
reply
visitor13 @ 11th May 11:47AM:
Re: The Cable companies are FORCING you to accept UBB
I actually have a sort of an experience with metered billing: when Verizon cut off their free access to alt.binaries newsgroups I signed up for one of the dedicated newsgroups servers. I could've picked one of the unlimited download monthly plans but I opted for xxxGB for xx$$ (they have 25GB/$10 and 120GB/$25 right now) which is not exactly the same thing as the ISPs are proposing - my plan never expires, lasts me anywhere between 4-6 months and for a moderate user like me is perfect: I would have been much worse off with the unlimited bandwidth The cheapest option: $10/month - still very reasonable for someone with greater needs than mine . I think it all comes down to fair pricing and being offered the right options. Perhaps a combination of plans and regulations would work? I'm not sure that the outcome of this discussion has to necessarily be viewed as unfair by either side.
reply
alohashirt @ 25th May 12:57AM:
Metered Billing is bad for America
I've lived in the US for more than ten years, initially as a lucky beneficiary of the H1B program. My family in Australia have "broadband", but as I discovered, "broadband" with metered billing ends up being pretty narrow.
A result of this is farcical conversations like "please dont send me any photos for the next two weeks until my allowance is back up again"
Broadband internet with a disincentive to use it is part of the reason that the US software industry is over 100 times larger than the Australian software industry.
Can you imagine hitting your monthly cap and having your service drop to 64KB/s? See below:
Plans for BigPond Wireless Mobile Card & Wireless Modem
Usage allowance1 Monthly access fee Excess usage charges
per MB
200MB $29.95 $0.25
1GB $59.95 $0.25
BigPond Liberty® 5GB $89.95
BigPond Liberty® 10GB $129.95
No excess usage charges^ If you are on a BigPond Liberty plan, once you reach your usage allowance, the speed of your service will slow to 64kbps until your new billing cycle starts.
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC