As Verizon Goes, So Goes Metered Billing - Baby bell holds the key to your wallet in their hands...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

As Verizon Goes, So Goes Metered Billing
Baby bell holds the key to your wallet in their hands...
(old news - 01:02PM Friday Apr 24 2009)
tags: prices · competition · business · bandwidth · Op/Ed · networking · consumers · caps
After this month's public backlash, it has become clear that if carriers are going to force metered billing upon their customers, they're going to have to do it en masse, to ensure that consumers don't have a competitive alternative. Time Warner Cable understands this well, given their suspended (for now) metered billing trial carefully avoided Verizon FiOS markets, and focused on less competitive areas. Even in those markets they found ISPs like Frontier willing to ditch cap plans just to have a competitive advantage.

Offering un-metered service puts an ISP on higher ground, something that Verizon has certainly taken advantage of in recent weeks. A press release from the company this week proclaims that "unlike some cable providers, Verizon doesn't penalize subscribers for using all the speed they need." They've also previously hinted that meters are a symptom of inadequate cable networks.


While Time Warner Cable took the public relations beating the last few weeks, there's an endless list of ISPs who'd love to implement the exact same business model. AT&T and Comcast are the largest, but Insight CEO Michael Wilner has spent several weeks blogging about his own love for the per-byte billing model. Collectively, these carriers dominate enough of the market to make a coordinated, anti-competitive shift toward per-byte billing industry wide.

Would such an effort constitute price fixing, or violate antitrust laws? "Antitrust law is all but worthless for small competitors and the public," telecom attorney Jim Baller tells us, "because it is much too case-specific, time-consuming, and expensive." Likewise, new efforts to impose regulation upon carrier pricing models may be well intentioned, but there's no indication they'd be flexible enough to allow for creative ISP pricing, or that they'd make it through the K-Street carrier lobbying gauntlet.

Really, the only thing standing between a huge shift toward metered billing is consumer anger, and Verizon.

Verizon has told us that they have no plans to cap or meter, albeit while using language that doesn't rule out the possibility. While staying meter free could be a competitive boon, the temptation to impose per gigabyte charges on Internet-video hungry households may be too great for the carrier. Verizon's strained willpower is made clear by a vague, non-committal missive by Verizon's Link Hoewing over at the Verizon Policy blog, where Hoewing insists that metered billing is about bringing value, and that consumers are in charge:
These are highly competitive markets with companies trying to come up with more value, innovation and differentiated offerings to help them attract customers...I can see ways that usage packages could be priced that could really help many segments of the market, such as low level users. . .Consumers are in charge and we�ll just have to see how they react to the market as it continues to evolve.
Of course they weren't "innovative" ideas occurring in "competitive markets," they were bad ideas aimed at markets without competition. The push also had nothing to do with value since sooner or later, customers under the metered billing model wind up paying more money for the same or lesser product. Of course metered billing is about monetizing/deterring Internet video to protect TV revenues -- though you'll never hear a carrier admit as much.

While we saw consumers stand up in unprecedented union against Time Warner Cable's specific proposal, a large part of that victory was thanks to a disastrous PR campaign by Time Warner Cable. Were Verizon to suddenly decide that metered billing is best for you, consumers would be facing the pooled PR, lobbying and disinformation resources of some of the largest companies in America. 95% of impacted customers would have no competitive alternative, and couldn't vote with their wallets against high overages.

Verizon should be praised for investing an unprecedented $23 billion back into the network, instead of sacrificing the future to placate myopic, impatient investors like so many other American carriers. Their GPON FTTH infrastructure should mean Verizon has the luxury of not having to bill by the byte. But Verizon could easily change that tune for extra profit's sake at any time. It's not like carrier claims that per byte billing is necessary to avoid fiscal and/or network armageddon have been particularly fact based anyway.

So keep an eye on Verizon. As Verizon's thinking goes, so goes the entire market.

Related:
  1. Time Warner Cable: Let's Not Talk About Net Neutrality
  2. Cable: Let Us Experiment With Pricing Or The Internet Explodes
  3. Mythbusters' Savage The Latest Socked With Huge 3G Bill
  4. Zer01 Mobile: $70 Unlimited Voice, SMS Data
  5. Real Consumer Group Takes Aim At Fake Ones
  6. Verizon's New Wireless Pricing Is An Insult
  7. What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
  8. Wall Street Journal Tries, Fails To Cover Metered Billing Debate
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
Matt @ 24th Apr 12:17PM:
Metered Billing Has Its Place

While some here would argue that metered billing in ANY form is bad, it can be a positive thing if implemented properly. How is that you ask? Well, for starters, you don't move every tier to metered billing nor do you make it so a customer has to spend 300% more a month to keep the same product they currently have.

Just like Time Warner didn't want to introduce RR Lite or RR Basic but they wound up being wildly successful, you introduce a new tier, let's call it the Granny Tier, that is based on usage billing. You make it 100% usage based (never happen) or you charge $9.99 month + usage.

Then, if people want more speed, but a cheaper monthly price than the unlimited plans, maybe offer a higher speed tier. Price the unlimited at $29.99 a month like it is, but price the usage at $19.99 + usage. You'll inevitably catch people with overages, but you'll at least give them a choice and won't penalize your customers who are comfortable with their current plan or simply don't want to watch their usage.

I personally feel Time Warner should just raise the rates of all their plans by 25% and be done with the whole damn thing. That would more than cover their DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades while simultaneously increasing their revenue and earnings. Their pricing structure hasn't changed since it was introduced, so they could even justify it. Coming out and saying, "Hey, we haven't raised rates since we introduced our product 10 years ago, so it's time!" would make a lot more sense than the current shenanigans they are attempting.

Penalizing your existing customers under the false pretense that it is somehow "good" for them when it in fact penalizes them, is contemptible.
reply
mig288 @ 24th Apr 12:18PM:
Fear the backlash...

Personally speaking, if ISP's decide to go to metered billing, I will discontinue service! The current 250 GB cap that comcast has implemented is not a problem IMO. However, if they decided to bill per byte, I will have a problem.

Thoughts?
reply
djrobx @ 24th Apr 12:20PM:
I completely agree...

Verizon is THE thorn in metered billing's side. Even in areas where AT&T and Time Warner compete against each other, Verizon is preventing Time Warner from being able to set national policy.

Consider the Los Angeles market, where Time Warner services areas that straddle AT&T and Verizon borders. Time Warner would have to selectively advertise metering to customers in certain zip codes.

And while Comcast has implemented caps, they are set quite high. Their agenda seems more to curtail extreme use rather than extort more money out of customers in the form of overages or coercing customers onto faster packages to gain better allowances. That will be a big problem for AT&T who, unlike Time Warner, tends to operate in a uniform fashion over their footprint.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.

reply
espaeth @ 24th Apr 12:28PM:
It's not that simple

Verizon's stance on what they can provide to subscribers is a function of their infrastructure. As many people have stated, the cost of head-end Internet access for large companies is incredibly low; the limitations are largely in the last-mile network.

Verizon is deploying new infrastructure for 3 major reasons:

•Getting into the Video Distribution game (Revenue $++)
•Going from being HSI speed disadvantaged with DSL to being able to surpass that of DOCSIS-based MSOs. (Customer base+)
•Reduced port capacity on expensive Lucent 5ESS / Nortel DMS250 legacy TDM switch hardware ($$ savings on maint)

What are the financial drivers that cable MSOs have today to expand their networks that are already based on IP Voice (no legacy TDM hardware to eliminated), are already delivering video, and have speeds and capacity that is sufficient for the overwhelming majority of the customer base?

Don't read this the wrong way, it's not that I'm against growing networks and providing higher speeds to customers, but I don't see the financial case for it. The DOW, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 indexes aren't made up of organizations like the Red Cross, UnitedWay, or UNICEF. It would be nice if karma factored into business decisions, but in our world economy these companies are rated on financial performance.
reply
Lazlow @ 24th Apr 12:30PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

Matt

They really cannot justify it. Just look at TWC's 10K. The cost of Revenues for HSI was $146 million(page 60) but the Revenues generated by HSI was $4.159 Billion (page 89). That is a cost of less than 4%. Someplace in the other 96% they should be able to find the money to do the D3 upgrade without increasing rates one bit. Just look at Cablevision's statement last week, they expect that the D3 upgrade will cost them between $70-120 per customer. Considering CV only holds a 2.5% market share and TWC holds 9%, TWC should be able to get a better rate (cost/customer) just due to its size.
reply
S_engineer @ 24th Apr 12:32PM:
Time to form a consumer union!

This way you could throw it in the face of politicians that beholdant to these companies.

Now, doesn't the anti-trust laws also provide remedies for collusion between peers?
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone

reply
espaeth @ 24th Apr 12:37PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by Lazlow :

They really cannot justify it. Just look at TWC's 10K. The cost of Revenues for HSI was $146 million(page 60) but the Revenues generated by HSI was $4.159 Billion (page 89).
The 10K balance sheet only shows direct costs (power, hardware, maintenance, vendor fees) and not indirect costs like operating the service vehicle fleet, developing tech training programs, paying employee salaries + benefits, call center operation costs, etc.
reply
sbrook @ 24th Apr 12:39PM:
Rogers and Bell played that game in Canada ... for a while

The two traded customers quite a bit after a game of "You'll be capped with Rogers ... but we're not" says Bell, who then got all these folks on board and implemented a Cap. Rogers didn't cap, so people flooded back to Rogers. Then Rogers capped and Bell uncapped. They flooded back to Bell.

The trouble is they stopped this game, and BOTH implemented caps, amongst things like bumping prices up several times a year to "stay competitive" (that's called, if they can put their price up, so can we). In other words the ISPs decide they don't want to play the "Let's trade customers" game any more.

So, look out ... The DSL providers and the Cable ops will all get their heads together and all start capping soon enough. It's called the "free market" they say. I call it a cheat!
reply
TKJunkMail @ 24th Apr 12:42PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by Matt :

While some here would argue that metered billing in ANY form is bad, it can be a positive thing if implemented properly. How is that you ask? Well, for starters, you don't move every tier to metered billing nor do you make it so a customer has to spend 300% more a month to keep the same product they currently have.
It is possible to devise a revenue neutral tiering plan with appropriate overage fees so that 95% of your customers would see no difference at all in their monthly costs. And for those in the highest speed/usage tier(those heaviest 5% users), heavy usage would lead to the appropriate extra costs in overage charges.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply
jammmin @ 24th Apr 12:43PM:
Re: Rogers and Bell played that game in Canada ... for a while

Verizon is being coy. They are taking a wait and see attitude.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 24th Apr 12:44PM:
Re: Fear the backlash...

said by mig288 :

Personally speaking, if ISP's decide to go to metered billing, I will discontinue service!
Thoughts?
Empty threat! If you use enough bandwidth to worry about overage charges, then you can't switch to any reasonable alternative.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply
Matt @ 24th Apr 12:45PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by Lazlow :

Matt

They really cannot justify it.
I have looked at their 10k. I've linked to it several times.

Regardless, I am not opposed to a company making money. My thought is that usage based billing can be implemented without blatant disregard for your customer nor as a greedy, "consumer-be-damned" money grab. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Time Warner trying to increase earnings for their shareholders. There is if you try to do it in a dishonest way that is extremely anti-consumer.

I also don't feel that they should necessarily have to shoulder the burden of the entire DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade, especially considering they haven't raised rates in 10 years. I think a modest rate increase to cover the rollout of DOCSIS 3.0 and one which would allow them to keep their same profit margin would be beneficial to both sides.

This "usage based billing is good for consumers" crap is just that, crap. It's not good implemented the way Time Warner is attempting to implement it -- but it can be good if implemented properly.
reply
Lazlow @ 24th Apr 12:49PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

Matt

If you really have looked at the 10K then you know that HSI costs have gone down(11% 2007/2008) over the last few years, while at the same time HSI revenues have gone up(12% 2007/2008).
reply
S_engineer @ 24th Apr 12:50PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by TKJunkMail :

said by Matt :

While some here would argue that metered billing in ANY form is bad, it can be a positive thing if implemented properly. How is that you ask? Well, for starters, you don't move every tier to metered billing nor do you make it so a customer has to spend 300% more a month to keep the same product they currently have.
It is possible to devise a revenue neutral tiering plan with appropriate overage fees so that 95% of your customers would see no difference at all in their monthly costs. And for those in the highest speed/usage tier(those heaviest 5% users), heavy usage would lead to the appropriate extra costs in overage charges.
But that wouldn't lead to the revenues they seek. There were alot of watered down alternatives, however TW shot for it all at once. This should be now known as a benchmark for where all carriers want to take the consumer. Any "ala carte" type billing potentially could cut into the incremental base they have now. And theat 95% of your customers is the group that they're looking to have pay these new revenues!
reply
Matt @ 24th Apr 12:51PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by TKJunkMail :

It is possible to devise a revenue neutral tiering plan with appropriate overage fees so that 95% of your customers would see no difference at all in their monthly costs. And for those in the highest speed/usage tier(those heaviest 5% users), heavy usage would lead to the appropriate extra costs in overage charges.
I still think you have to give people the option of keeping their existing plans with no limits. I know personally, I'd pay a bit extra to not have to worry about monitoring my usage. If you have people who abuse it (the frequently touted "bandwidth hog") then you take appropriate action.

If it really is only 1% of their user base, how hard would it be to move them to a higher tier or force them to move to usage based billing? If they are really costing the company so much money, you'd solve two problems, one, they'd stop using so much which saves you money, or two, you generate more revenue from that customer. Either way (Whether you believe a customer not using as much data even saves them money or not. I don't.) you solve the problem you are parroting.
reply
Sammer @ 24th Apr 12:58PM:
Re: It's not that simple

said by espaeth :

Don't read this the wrong way, it's not that I'm against growing networks and providing higher speeds to customers, but I don't see the financial case for it.
This country had better figure out the financial case for it before it becomes a banana republic rather than the world's only superpower.
reply
Matt @ 24th Apr 01:01PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by S_engineer :

But that wouldn't lead to the revenues they seek. There were alot of watered down alternatives, however TW shot for it all at once.
I think that part sums it up very succinctly. They shot their whole wad going for the ideal way they wanted to bill their customers.
reply
the tribble @ 24th Apr 01:03PM:
I am not apposed to a company making money either -but

how much is enough? when does it end? Are we the people not paying enough thru the nose for everything in our friggin lives as it is? If they wanted metering it should have started ten years ago, not now when most everyone has high speed internet, and they feel the need for greed, all of a sudden, what? They feel like nickel & dimeing the people even further? enough is enough this should be a dead issue.
reply
Metatron2008 @ 24th Apr 01:03PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

You would need 200,000 employees being paid $50,000 each to get to even 1 billion. This indirect excuse is bullshit too.
reply
jadebangle @ 24th Apr 01:07PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by Matt :

said by TKJunkMail :

It is possible to devise a revenue neutral tiering plan with appropriate overage fees so that 95% of your customers would see no difference at all in their monthly costs. And for those in the highest speed/usage tier(those heaviest 5% users), heavy usage would lead to the appropriate extra costs in overage charges.
I still think you have to give people the option of keeping their existing plans with no limits. I know personally, I'd pay a bit extra to not have to worry about monitoring my usage. If you have people who abuse it (the frequently touted "bandwidth hog") then you take appropriate action.

If it really is only 1% of their user base, how hard would it be to move them to a higher tier or force them to move to usage based billing? If they are really costing the company so much money, you'd solve two problems, one, they'd stop using so much which saves you money, or two, you generate more revenue from that customer. Either way (Whether you believe a customer not using as much data even saves them money or not. I don't.) you solve the problem you are parroting.
The last time I went to a buffet you can't take home what you can't eat
To discourage customer from giving their leftover to others
as long as you don't take any home, their isn't a problem if you have taken more then you can chew
It is preferred that you leave it their so they can either dump it or save some leftover for the next day
reply
delltechkid @ 24th Apr 01:10PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

All of the indirect costs you mention would exist even if they didn't provide HSI, as they must have these for TV. Sure there are a few extra people that they might of had to hire to cover the people who buy only internet, but I'm sure the majority of their HSI customers probably have cable TV as well.
reply
jadebangle @ 24th Apr 01:12PM:
Re: I am not apposed to a company making money either -but

said by the tribble :

how much is enough? when does it end? Are we the people not paying enough thru the nose for everything in our friggin lives as it is? If they wanted metering it should have started ten years ago, not now when most everyone has high speed internet, and they feel the need for greed, all of a sudden, what? They feel like nickel & dimeing the people even further? enough is enough this should be a dead issue.
metered can save some user money if it is fairly used as a new tier rather then forced upon us all...
let's say 4.99 for 768Kbps for up to 1gb
9.99 for 1.5mbps for up to 2gbps
anything over is 1 dollar per gigabyte
This is for user who just want to surf the internet and don't do any video content
That's my way of managing metered bandwidth
not this BS of changing unlimited tier to metered
14.99 at 3.0mbps capped at 3gb
24.99 at 5.ompbs capped at 5gb
24.99 at 768kbps unlimited, you're paying more no meter and a lot slower ^_^
These lousy meterd bandwidth are meant for dialup user who like faster surfing experience
It isn't for the average user who uses a lot of bandwidth
reply
jimbo2150 @ 24th Apr 01:12PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by Matt :

There is if you try to do it in a dishonest way that is extremely anti-consumer.
This is exactly the kind of poor thinking of companies and those who support it today. ONLY being dishonest is anti-consumer? Falsifying data (which is what most are doing now) to support their own agenda is not dishonest? What about greed? $1/gb is not excessive greed? $0.20/text message is not excessive greed?

I am all for companies making money, but legitimate money. They can make a decent profit going somewhere in the middle or less without today's view that whatever business does is good for the consumer. Sorry, but I won't stand for this greed going on invading internet too. It is bad enough most places do not have competition, but taking more fees and gross tiering is getting out of line...
--

- "Techie" Jim

reply
thecptrgod @ 24th Apr 01:14PM:
One of those 95%....

"95% of impacted customers would have no competitive alternative, and couldn't vote with their wallets against high overages."

I'm in that boat. On one hand, I have AT&T who has a cap and on the other, I have Charter who has also said they're implementing caps. It's lose-lose either way I go. Especially since yes, I *could* blow the cap in a month and no, I'm not using P2P. I watch 95% of my TV on Hulu and Netflix since I refuse to pay for cable or satellite since it'd be a ton of money for the 2 things I'd watch on it.
--
I'm blogging @ »www.chernow.org/blog

reply
Jerm @ 24th Apr 01:15PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

I'm all for $10 + actual use. IF THEY WOULD CHARGE ONLY THEIR COST OF BW * 2 maximum!!!!

It has been estimated that large bandwidth companies only pay between $0.05 to $0.10 per GB. And lets say it takes double that to "get it to your home" and thats still only $0.20 per GB maximum. So a more than "fair" price might be $0.40 per GB - with it possibly being half that.

Heck Amazon's S3 service charges $0.20 per GB.
reply
S_engineer @ 24th Apr 01:17PM:
Re: I am not apposed to a company making money either -but

said by the tribble :

how much is enough?
The carriers are simply implementing the same policies they see coming out of Washingto DC. Policy via crisis; you come up with a doomsday scenario where something (the network) will come apart (because of bandwidth hogs)unless drastic changes are made (to your contract). " It will be painful and you'll have to pay a lttle more" seems to be the theme these days, whether its a bank, a broadband carrier, a city gov't, or your local Dominos. This has all been brought about by people living beyond thier means, a concept that was discarded with cheap credit. It's actually quite sad....
reply
RARPSL @ 24th Apr 01:20PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by Matt :

Just like Time Warner didn't want to introduce RR Lite or RR Basic but they wound up being wildly successful, you introduce a new tier, let's call it the Granny Tier, that is based on usage billing. You make it 100% usage based (never happen) or you charge $9.99 month + usage.

I agree that 100% usage based will never happen since it is not fair either to the ISP or the customer. The way to go is the second method - A flat fee for the making the service available and a per-unit for for your usage of the service.

This is the way production costs are computed and it fits this situation. To produce widgets, you have an initial cost to set up the machine to produce them and then a per-item cost to produce a widget once the machine is set up. In this case, the set-up is connecting the customer (including billing them) and all the infrastructure needed to deliver access to the Internet. The per-unit cost is the cost of actually using the Internet.
Then, if people want more speed, but a cheaper monthly price than the unlimited plans, maybe offer a higher speed tier. Price the unlimited at $29.99 a month like it is, but price the usage at $19.99 + usage. You'll inevitably catch people with overages, but you'll at least give them a choice and won't penalize your customers who are comfortable with their current plan or simply don't want to watch their usage.
You are confusing the speed that the user can move data with the volume of data that they can move. A higher speed tier has nothing to do with how much data you can move - Only how long it will take you to move it. Unless you want to move more data then a slow tier can handle if used 24/7, all switching to a faster tier does is decrease the amount of time it takes to move the same amount of data.
reply
S_engineer @ 24th Apr 01:21PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

Rollover bandwidth...theres an idea. Although you'd have the same congestion at peak times now!
reply
espaeth @ 24th Apr 01:23PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by delltechkid :

All of the indirect costs you mention would exist even if they didn't provide HSI, as they must have these for TV. Sure there are a few extra people that they might of had to hire to cover the people who buy only internet, but I'm sure the majority of their HSI customers probably have cable TV as well.
There are a number of dual-purpose employees, which is why it's difficult to tie them to a specific product. Still, if you needed 40 FTE hours/week to serve a function specific to video that same person isn't going to be able to have more time dedicated to HSI. As workload increases you need more people, even if some of their duties may be shared.

The HSI call center support staff are different from the video support staff. There are still many data-only field service techs, and without the HSI product they wouldn't need the CMTS layout they have (and associated employees who manage that), they wouldn't need the abuse staff to deal with DMCA complaints, they wouldn't have as much to manage in terms of ARIN IP netblock allocations, DNS assignments, mail server operations, DNS/DHCP server operations, etc.

No matter how you look at it, direct costs of a specific service alone are a poor way of relating the total cost of providing that service to revenue.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 24th Apr 01:27PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by jimbo2150 :

What about greed? $1/gb is not excessive greed? $0.20/text message is not excessive greed?

I am all for companies making money, but legitimate money.

And what exactly is greed? At what point does making a profit become greed? Well, that is strictly in the eye of the purchaser. For some people, greed is any company that makes a profit greater than 1%. And for a very few, greed is when a company makes any profit at all. So what is the % that fits your definition of greed? Is it a profit tied to the Cost of Capital? Is it a risk weighted return better than you could earn in a so-called safe investment like treasury bills? Is it some % above the rate of inflation?

So, what is your definition?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply
jmn1207 @ 24th Apr 01:29PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by S_engineer :

Rollover bandwidth...theres an idea. Although you'd have the same congestion at peak times now!
Not to mention that it would completely negate the notion that metered billing is a necessity for the continued survival of the cable industry, and not just a money grab.
reply
ciucca @ 24th Apr 01:35PM:
I Would not Trust Verizon

They are playing the wait and see game. If they see the Cable cos being successful they will follow.

With the rise of 4G wireless, the wired cable cos may find this tactic blow up in their faces, except for dual companies like Verizon.

Verizon Wireless now theres a gaggle of billing crooks, and I work for them :D

.20 per text message coming or going please! The rise of texting and the fall of voice calling has lightened the load on the network. Texting is less of a strain on the system than voice calling, but the texting price per message has doubled the last few years, coinciding with the rise in text messaging. Pure money grab that's all.

I'm a firm believer in the feds regulating subsidizing and perhaps nationalizing the internet infrastructure to avoid this kind of crap.
reply
Metatron2008 @ 24th Apr 01:37PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

I'd call greedy any broadband based company that is attempting to get more money for less service during a rough recession that will stiffle recovery

For all the talk of defending corporations TK, I'm surprised your defending this. If the economy doesn't recover, which steps like these may make it happen, their won't be any way for corporations to survive.

With all this said, I think greed is something that works outside of the free market. If you set your product to be any price, and the customer pays it, then good. Even if it's billions of dollars.

If they don't want to pay that, then you go down. Greed is destruction of free market IMO.
reply
Lazlow @ 24th Apr 01:39PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

Tk

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that Espaeth has a point and we move the total HSI revenue cost from $146 million to an even $1 Billion, which should cover ANY imagined costs. You are still making over four times as much as your costs. I do not hold it against any company to make an honest profit, but can you really say that anything over 100% profit is honest? ($4.159 - $1)/$1=316%(profit)
reply
anon @ 24th Apr 01:40PM:
no way

i dont think verizon will have caps.
fiber and caps??? no way. then why are they spending money on fiber if they are planning caps in the first place?

the answer from the consumers should be a clear NO. the public should start having tactics if their own against ISPs tactics
reply
Chaldo @ 24th Apr 01:43PM:
Re: I Would not Trust Verizon

Yup, I hear the FIOS service is a blast though, but it pisses me off to see something that costs near nothing get billed so high. Why can't it be illegal to do such things?
reply
Metatron2008 @ 24th Apr 01:44PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by Lazlow :

Tk

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that Espaeth has a point and we move the total HSI revenue cost from $146 million to an even $1 Billion, which should cover ANY imagined costs. You are still making over four times as much as your costs. I do not hold it against any company to make an honest profit, but can you really say that anything over 100% profit is honest? ($4.159 - $1)/$1=316%(profit)
I don't see a problem with it, as long as customers keep paying it and WANTING to pay.

The TWC CEO must be a complete idiot, if you are making that much revenue, why piss off your customers?

Make a few network upgrades, add new speeds, make people pay more for the new speeds! Not piss them off, lose customers and business.

When did executives forget how to treat customers? You are supposed to kiss their ass, make them feel good, even if you aren't going to fill their needs...
reply
DaveNJ @ 24th Apr 01:47PM:
Re: Fear the backlash...

With LTE coming around next year, companies like Metro PCS , and Fios. There may be some alternatives.
reply
me1212 @ 24th Apr 01:51PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

I agree with you Jerm.
reply
me1212 @ 24th Apr 01:53PM:
Sounds to me like verizon is saying.....

FTTH>cable, which I agree with. They know they can use their no cap/metered billing to their advantage.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 24th Apr 02:05PM:
Re: Fear the backlash...

said by DaveNJ :

With LTE coming around next year, companies like Metro PCS , and Fios. There may be some alternatives.
I still think that if the wireline(cable & telco) ISPs go to tiers and overage fees like he posed in his question, then all wireless providers will do the same.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply
Matt @ 24th Apr 02:07PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by jimbo2150 :

said by Matt :

There is if you try to do it in a dishonest way that is extremely anti-consumer.
This is exactly the kind of poor thinking of companies and those who support it today. ONLY being dishonest is anti-consumer? Falsifying data (which is what most are doing now) to support their own agenda is not dishonest? What about greed? $1/gb is not excessive greed? $0.20/text message is not excessive greed?
I think everything you mention would fall under the umbrella of "dishonest." I also mention several times in my posts that their plan penalizes their existing customers, I think that covers greed too.

Also, I'm not sure I like the implied insult that I am somehow pro-Time Warner or pro any corporation. I most definitely fall onto the pro-consumer side of things, but I'm not naive enough to fall so far to the pro-consumer side that I can't see and understand both sides.
reply
Matt @ 24th Apr 02:10PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by RARPSL :

You are confusing the speed that the user can move data with the volume of data that they can move. A higher speed tier has nothing to do with how much data you can move - Only how long it will take you to move it. Unless you want to move more data then a slow tier can handle if used 24/7, all switching to a faster tier does is decrease the amount of time it takes to move the same amount of data.
I don't see that I am confusing anything.

If the "Granny Tier" is 768Kbps but I want the ability to say, stream Netflix. I should have the option of upgrading to the "Granny Xtreme Tier!" which has say, a 1.5Mbps limit. I am obviously paying extra for the convenience of being able to move more bits per second, so there should be an extra charge associated with that.
reply
Matt @ 24th Apr 02:13PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by Lazlow :

Tk

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that Espaeth has a point and we move the total HSI revenue cost from $146 million to an even $1 Billion, which should cover ANY imagined costs. You are still making over four times as much as your costs. I do not hold it against any company to make an honest profit, but can you really say that anything over 100% profit is honest? ($4.159 - $1)/$1=316%(profit)
Most companies that I have worked for would consider a profit that is 4 times documented costs as a pretty terrible margin. You simply can't expand with that kind of limited revenue flow and the subsequent cash reserves it would allow for.

I think you'd be surprised to know that most companies have profit margins that are 1000's of percentage points higher than the physical cost.
reply
Lazlow @ 24th Apr 02:17PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

Lets flip this around a little bit. Lets compare the video numbers. Cost of Video Revenues $3.75Billion, Video Revenues $10.5 Billion. Now keeping Espaeth point in mind we will add the same $.85 Billion we did for HSI.

3.75+.85= 4.6

(10.5-4.6)/4.6=128%(profit)

So I think disparity in percent profit shows that it is about how much they can convince the user to pay versus what it costs.
reply
Matt @ 24th Apr 02:18PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

Lazlow, can you please provide the link to where you are getting your numbers? Thanks.
reply
Lazlow @ 24th Apr 02:19PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

It is from TWC's 10K, usually pages 60 and 89.

»investing.businessweek.com/resea···ype=10-K
reply
me1212 @ 24th Apr 02:24PM:
Re: Fear the backlash...

You never know, if the wireless did not and the wired did who would get more costumers? Just like FiOS is using no cap/meter to its advantage WISPs may too, I know mine does.
reply
jimbo2150 @ 24th Apr 02:26PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by TKJunkMail :

And what exactly is greed?
Such an easy way to attempt to say nothing is greed. I can certainly ask the same question... what exactly is NOT greed? 800% pofit? 8000%?

So why is to SOOOOO bad to have a profit aimed at giving decent consumer products and make a decent return 5 years in vs. 0.5 years in? I don't know why so many companies seem to think that if they are not making an immediate return, it should not be done or it is the wrong way to go. When did instant gratification become part of business?

Edit: Also, what about COMPETITION?? They do everything to keep it out and in the Internet business there seems to be very little in most places in the U.S. (with exception to very large metro areas).
--

- "Techie" Jim

reply
S_engineer @ 24th Apr 02:28PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

I think theres a certain trap that people are falling into, and that's your view falls into one extreme or another. This is the same polarization that is paralyzing Washington DC.
Everyone has the right to a profit. And what one person sees as greed another sees as profit. But here you have a case where a company tries to make drastic detrimental changes to service of the consumer for no reason other than more profit. Then they insult the consumer by implying they're ignorant. On top of that, they then tell you your not worth upgrading. This is consumer rape!

There is a discussion that should have happened a long time ago. A sort of stress test for broadband providers. That is what happens when broadband reaches saturation point?
How would the already oversold services hold up to the expanding web with expanding content. This is nothing new, we were having these discussions years ago. So to me, the basic argument is that are we going to let the already profitable mega carriers extort more money from the consumer because they see an even more profitable business model.
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone

reply
jimbo2150 @ 24th Apr 02:29PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by Matt :

I think you'd be surprised to know that most companies have profit margins that are 1000's of percentage points higher than the physical cost.
And my entire point is... why? Why do they have to have an immediate return at the expense of their customers? What ever happen to long-term investments? And why is it seen as such a bad thing that a company not make a 1000+% profit margin when they could make a 100%. It may take a bit more time for a full return but it would most likely come.
--

- "Techie" Jim

reply
me1212 @ 24th Apr 02:33PM:
Re: no way

Think about it, what is cables biggest money maker? TV. What is verizon's? Is it tv? well, it is only in FiOS areas and there are not all that many, yet, so no. Phone? If this were 10 years ago maybe, but I do not think so now what with VoIP and verizon not giving much of a hassle with dry lines. so what is left? Internet, that is all that is left so..... Cablecos impose cap in their internet to protect their main cash income, verizon(from what I can tell) keeps them cap-less to do to same with its main income, and make their internet look better. And their tv is not everywhere yet.

I can see why cablecos do it, I mean why would they want to make their main cash source look not as good.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 24th Apr 02:35PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by Lazlow :

It is from TWC's 10K, usually pages 60 and 89.

»investing.businessweek.com/resea···ype=10-K
And if you look at the overall revenues - costs(excluding a one time charge of $14.8 billion, their profits are not overly high.
Their revenues for TWC were approx $17 billion and the costs were $14 billion. So they made $3 billion on $17 billion in revenue. A 17.6% return.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply
jmn1207 @ 24th Apr 02:35PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

Impatient, short-sighted investors are the culprits behind some of the lousy business decisions we see all the time.
reply
Desdinova @ 24th Apr 02:36PM:
I Dunno...

..the whole pro-metered argument seems to me to be along the lines of Comcast's cable TV division suddenly telling me "Hey, we've oversold our network and rather than expand it and transfer the overage to the expanded area, we're going to limit the amount of TV you can watch. You now have an entertainment cap of five shows a day. If you watch more than five shows we're going to bill you for every minute over that you watch."

Maybe instead of overselling each node to the breaking point and making everyone suffer, the ISPs could just exercise more responsible sales techniques? It seems to me THEY'RE the ones who have created the bandwidth crunch and NOT the folks who want what they paid for.
reply
Metatron2008 @ 24th Apr 02:36PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by jimbo2150 :

said by Matt :

I think you'd be surprised to know that most companies have profit margins that are 1000's of percentage points higher than the physical cost.
And my entire point is... why? Why do they have to have an immediate return at the expense of their customers? What ever happen to long-term investments? And why is it seen as such a bad thing that a company not make a 1000+% profit margin when they could make a 100%. It may take a bit more time for a full return but it would most likely come.
Why would a margin 1000's of times be bad to the consumer if they are willing to pay it?

That's just making money. If the customer refuses, making them pay it is monopolistic greed.

But hey, if the customer wants to pay it, why stop them?

In all honesty, their is a large difference between keeping the customer happy, and letting them have a choice, versus being a hippy who wants to share the wealth.
reply
Metatron2008 @ 24th Apr 02:41PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by jimbo2150 :

said by TKJunkMail :

And what exactly is greed?
Such an easy way to attempt to say nothing is greed. I can certainly ask the same question... what exactly is NOT greed? 800% pofit? 8000%?

So why is to SOOOOO bad to have a profit aimed at giving decent consumer products and make a decent return 5 years in vs. 0.5 years in? I don't know why so many companies seem to think that if they are not making an immediate return, it should not be done or it is the wrong way to go. When did instant gratification become part of business?

Edit: Also, what about COMPETITION?? They do everything to keep it out and in the Internet business there seems to be very little in most places in the U.S. (with exception to very large metro areas).
I think TK was implying that greed means differently to alot of people.
reply
jimbo2150 @ 24th Apr 02:42PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by Metatron2008 :

Why would a margin 1000's of times be bad to the consumer if they are willing to pay it?
Now lets factor it competition into your equation. No/little competition means there is little/nothing to offset that excessive price. It means the consumer has little option besides pay it or drop the service (supposing they are not locked in a contact and have to pay early term fees).

The same companies charge excessive rates to allow others to use their network. Well out of the viable competitive range. THey constantly try to prevent competition and even a community's attempts to create competion (either through a local/private network, wireless, or other).

And in the end the consumer has no voice. Stinks to high heaven of greed to me.
--

- "Techie" Jim

reply
en102 @ 24th Apr 02:43PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by jimbo2150 :

What about greed? $1/gb is not excessive greed? $0.20/text message is not excessive greed?
1. Text messaging isn't a requirement for cell phone/data
2. There are relatively cheap unlimited plans by every carrier.
3. You can have text messaging disabled

This is more like having a 10GB 1.5Mbps plan with overages, and having the option to upgrade to a 10Mbps plan with unlimited. Of course, unlike text messaging - its the actual plan, while text messaging is an add on (I have mine disabled - waste of money, internet data is cheaper)
reply
DGLewis @ 24th Apr 02:45PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by espaeth :

The 10K balance sheet only shows direct costs (power, hardware, maintenance, vendor fees) and not indirect costs like operating the service vehicle fleet, developing tech training programs, paying employee salaries + benefits, call center operation costs, etc.
And those indirect costs scale not with traffic, but with number of customers. The number of trucks, technicians, and call center workers you need doesn't change whether your customers are using 10 GB/month, 100 GB/month, or 1000 GB/month.
reply
datwell1 @ 24th Apr 02:45PM:
Metered Billing is GOOD For Me!

Yes! I wish all of Verizon's competitors would implement metered billing with really low caps right away!

My Verizon stock would rise even more!

I love my FiOS!

--Doug
reply
majortom1029 @ 24th Apr 02:48PM:
Only reason

The only reason why verizon is not doing metered billing is because they have competition. It has nothing to do with the network and all to do with MONEY.
reply
wwdubbia @ 24th Apr 02:51PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by DGLewis :

said by espaeth :

The 10K balance sheet only shows direct costs (power, hardware, maintenance, vendor fees) and not indirect costs like operating the service vehicle fleet, developing tech training programs, paying employee salaries + benefits, call center operation costs, etc.
And those indirect costs scale not with traffic, but with number of customers. The number of trucks, technicians, and call center workers you need doesn't change whether your customers are using 10 GB/month, 100 GB/month, or 1000 GB/month.
and it would be safe to assume that these costs would go down due to the caps. e.g. less customers = lesser need for technicians/truck rolls
reply
anon @ 24th Apr 02:53PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by espaeth :

The 10K balance sheet only shows direct costs (power, hardware, maintenance, vendor fees) and not indirect costs like operating the service vehicle fleet, developing tech training programs, paying employee salaries + benefits, call center operation costs, etc.
None of which are affected by bandwidth utilization.
reply
Matt @ 24th Apr 02:53PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by jimbo2150 :

said by Matt :

I think you'd be surprised to know that most companies have profit margins that are 1000's of percentage points higher than the physical cost.
And my entire point is... why? Why do they have to have an immediate return at the expense of their customers? What ever happen to long-term investments? And why is it seen as such a bad thing that a company not make a 1000+% profit margin when they could make a 100%. It may take a bit more time for a full return but it would most likely come.
I don't mean on the value of their stock. The point of such a high profit margin is to allow for investment in expansion, to better the service, as a safety net for the unexpected. There are numerous reason that successful companies must have such a large profit margin and really require one to operate. Apple has what, a 600% profit margin on the iPhone by most estimates? (That's probably on the low side too.)

When you start talking about huge corporations like Time Warner, that percentage can shrink because that percentage of profit is simply a much larger sum of money. You see that in the executive compensation packages. CEO, CTO, CFO's all figured out if they can eek out 2 points on their stock value by cutting costs, they directly stand to benefit. It may not be much to the profit of the company, but it's still a huge sum of money to an individual. After all, what is $28 million if you had a net profit of $7 billion? That's only .4% of said net profit.

However, that $28 million could have upgraded half your market to DOCSIS 3.0. So a lot of what you see is the result of impatient stock holders who want an immediate return. They are not the majority of the smart investors out there however. They came to the forefront when the day trading phenomenon became prevalent. When you couple that with the greed of an executive, little to no competition, and no oversight by an impartial party, you get what we have now. Greed run rampant in the from of anti-consumer practices.
reply
Matt @ 24th Apr 02:56PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by jimbo2150 :

Now lets factor it competition into your equation. No/little competition means there is little/nothing to offset that excessive price.
That is exactly right and why I am so infuriated by this entire fiasco. Time Warner is rolling this trial out in markets with little to no competition. Why aren't they rolling this out in their competitive markets where they face FiOS? Isn't THAT where they should upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0?
reply
Skippy25 @ 24th Apr 03:00PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

I would simply define it by looking at other industries that actually have true competition.

How much do HP / Dell / IBM make on their PC business?
What about simple hardware vendors like Mwave and Newegg?
Amazon and OneCall?
How about your local grocery stores?
How about your local fast food restaurants?

The problem is you have a company that is a monopoly in many areas and a (cooperative) duopoloy at best in others. Stating that if customers are willing to pay it then they are golden is neither right (morally) or collectively for the consumer base because they truly have no choice.

The number one problem for corporations are investors (like yourself) that don't care about anything except profit. And you don't just want profit, you want it here and now and will sacrifice tomorrow to make a buck today. Worse comes to worse, you just pull your money out of one company and shove it in another as you can care less where you make your money, you just want to make it. Be damned with the company and/or society - give me profit.
reply
espaeth @ 24th Apr 03:10PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by DGLewis :

And those indirect costs scale not with traffic, but with number of customers. The number of trucks, technicians, and call center workers you need doesn't change whether your customers are using 10 GB/month, 100 GB/month, or 1000 GB/month.
I didn't say they were related to traffic consumption. I simply stated that you can't directly relate the direct costs of Data Services on a 10-K statement to revenue because it doesn't account for the most expensive parts of providing the service: the humans involved in the operation of the services, taxes, interest on outstanding debt, and other overhead.
reply
S_engineer @ 24th Apr 03:27PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

hey TK...would you then mind or be in favor of the gov't taxing the user on a per GB basis?
reply
anon @ 24th Apr 03:43PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

I'm not a "large bandwidth company", just an average guy that hosts some web content and a few websites, and I buy bandwidth in 1TB chunks, at the rate of 2-3 cents per gigabyte. And that's NOT cogent bandwidth, It's Level3 bandwidth. And I have no problem paying for the bandwidth as I use it, since I know it's provided to me at a reasonable cost.

While it may not be easy to pin down the exact cost of bandwidth, it's quite obvious it's a relatively cheap, and plentiful resource, which naturally makes it a perfect resource for cable companies to mislead customers into thinking it's "scarce and expensive".
reply
SuperWISP @ 24th Apr 03:44PM:
Consumers, you have a RIGHT to get something for nothing!

Yes, that's right: according to Mr. Bode, you have the right to use unlimited resources -- but Heaven forbid that what you pay might be related to what you use.
reply
jimbo2150 @ 24th Apr 03:52PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by Matt :

That is exactly right and why I am so infuriated by this entire fiasco. Time Warner is rolling this trial out in markets with little to no competition. Why aren't they rolling this out in their competitive markets where they face FiOS? Isn't THAT where they should upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0?
And the low caps to go with it. Will it really be usable for anything other than email? Personally, I am not sure what TW is actually thinking to begin with.
--

- "Techie" Jim

reply
houkouonchi @ 24th Apr 04:03PM:
Why would verizon cap?

They own a teir1 bandwidth provider. They make money when their customers upload/download more. I don't see why they would implement caps when it just gives them good PR not to.
reply
jadebangle @ 24th Apr 04:13PM:
Re: Only reason

said by majortom1029 :

The only reason why verizon is not doing metered billing is because they have competition. It has nothing to do with the network and all to do with MONEY.
They have unlimited bandwidth other provider have limited or small pipeline so they are trying to hide the fact by using metering billing to reduce usage to minimum amount
reply
anon @ 24th Apr 04:15PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

I would have no problem paying $5 or $10 more a month considering I use more than most average users. Given how cheap bandwidth is, that $5-10 would not only easy cover my fair share of bandwidth usage but also net TW some profit towards upgrades.

I think most other people who also get a lot of benefit out of their broadband connection would be willing to pay a little bit more, like I do. But suddenly penalizing people with overages that could easily top out at $150, which is 3-4x more than we already pay is ridiculous. How ridiculous exactly? How would you feel about paying 3-4x more on your electric, gas or water bill? Or what about paying 3-4 times more for that car you just bought. What about having your mortgage or your food bill quadruple? You never see increases that dramatic on any other common service, so why should we see it on broadband?

People complain when their cable bill goes up 3-5% with a rate hike, but people eat the cost and move on. This should be no different, since I have never had a 300-400% rate hike on my cable bill before, broadband should follow the same rules.

I'm not against TW making a profit, or trying to figure out a way to pay for DOCSIS 3 upgrades, but they surely should have found a more acceptable way to do it. I personally would like to see them re-brand their Turbo tier as their unlimited/250GB super tier and keep it about the same price, while all lower tiers may have a usage-based type billing model. It would give users in non-competitive area's some choice.
reply
rawgerz @ 24th Apr 04:24PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

TW is a public company, so they will like many others look for any way to increase their earnings. It's all about the shareholders.
--

You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority.

reply
TKJunkMail @ 24th Apr 04:25PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by Skippy25 :

And you don't just want profit, you want it here and now and will sacrifice tomorrow to make a buck today.
quote:
Not true. Most investors want to maximize profits over a period of time. They don't look for an immediate return at the expense of steady long term returns.

Worse comes to worse, you just pull your money out of one company and shove it in another as you can care less where you make your money
quote:
And you would leave your hard earned money in a company that never turns a profit, purely out of altruism for the employees & society? Don't make me laugh!!


--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply
TKJunkMail @ 24th Apr 04:28PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by RR User :

How would you feel about paying 3-4x more on your electric, gas or water bill? Or what about paying 3-4 times more for that car you just bought. What about having your mortgage or your food bill quadruple?

You never see increases that dramatic on any other common service, so why should we see it on broadband?
How about gasoline prices?
How about the cost of electricity in Calif a few years ago?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply
jjeffeory @ 24th Apr 04:28PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

This seems to be getting too complicated. Too many tiers for the average consumer.
reply
jjeffeory @ 24th Apr 04:33PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

$3 BILLION??? Sounds freaking fantastic to me.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 24th Apr 04:35PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by jjeffeory :

$3 BILLION??? Sounds freaking fantastic to me.
The percentage is the relevant number, not the amount.
reply
Nightwchtr @ 24th Apr 04:36PM:
Metered Billing

I have FIOS and if Verizon decides to implament Metered billing along with the other ISP's then I will cancel everything. This is crap about how metered billing gives the consumer better choices, what a bunch of crap. Lately I have been fedup with these companies taking advantage of consumers and its not only the ISP's, you got the credit card companies, banks and so on. If they go metered billing and I cant find an alternative then I will cancel all together and wait to see if it changes back.
reply
S_engineer @ 24th Apr 04:57PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

Would you be in favor of taxation on a per GB basis. That would be the next step in the evolution of billing for broadband services!
You may think it's far fetched, but 2 years ago so was the idea of metered billing.
This is a consumer fight that has broad implications.
reply
kb_019 @ 24th Apr 05:01PM:
Re: Only reason

said by majortom1029 :

The only reason why verizon is not doing metered billing is because they have competition. It has nothing to do with the network and all to do with MONEY.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

Should the cable broadband providers ever succeed in getting metered/capped service passed in major markets Verizon will definitely follow their lead.

Thus the importance in fighting metered/capped service anywhere...
reply
me1212 @ 24th Apr 05:09PM:
Re: Why would verizon cap?

IF they really make money off of it, that is why that have not.
reply
tdouglas22 @ 24th Apr 05:20PM:
Expansion

There is so much money these internet providers could be making if they would focus on expanding their services to areas that don't have true high-speed access. I think it would be a very good idea if they worked on EXPANDING their coverage. There are so many rural customers who would love to have even 1.5 Mb service. Maybe they should get on board with that idea.
reply
dynodb @ 24th Apr 05:30PM:
Re: Only reason

said by jadebangle :

said by majortom1029 :

The only reason why verizon is not doing metered billing is because they have competition. It has nothing to do with the network and all to do with MONEY.
They have unlimited bandwidth other provider have limited or small pipeline so they are trying to hide the fact by using metering billing to reduce usage to minimum amount
"Unlimited bandwidth"? No. They'll be oversubscribing just like every other provider does. Right now, utilization probably isn't much of an issue because they have a relatively new service that the vast majority of eligible households aren't subscribing to. Even with those that are, most aren't going to be using that much bandwidth- broadband video is still in it's infancy.

As utilization per user continues to increase (and it increases substantially every year), and as they gain more subscribers who on average use more bandwidth, it's almost a given that they'll have to implement some sort cap at some point in the future.

Even fiber can support only a finite number of 50M connections at once.
reply
espaeth @ 24th Apr 05:42PM:
Re: Fear the backlash...

said by me1212 :

You never know, if the wireless did not and the wired did who would get more costumers?
With the driver being resource constraints, Wireless provider have more hurdles to overcome than wireline carriers. (and it's not just a matter of frequency space, you have to get bandwidth out to the radios driving the towers as well)
reply
major marco @ 24th Apr 06:20PM:
Re: It's not that simple

said by Sammer :

This country had better figure out the financial case for it before it becomes a banana republic rather than the world's only superpower.
LMAO. Newsflash: The U.S. has been a banana republic since Fall 2008 when the economy was spiraling the toilet only to be finally flushed as of 2009.
reply
anon @ 24th Apr 06:23PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
birdfeedr @ 24th Apr 06:23PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by TKJunkMail :

How about gasoline prices?
How about the cost of electricity in Calif a few years ago?
Oil fluctuations are globally and politically influenced.

Calif. electricity was result of Enron's criminal behavior (fueled by greed).
reply
me1212 @ 24th Apr 06:35PM:
Re: Fear the backlash...

I know. But still if they can afford it why not get an advantage? I use wireless BTW and it has no meter.
reply
chronoss2009 @ 24th Apr 06:53PM:
So idea hit me

if your NOT in that fios area, drive over and get a bud to help ya out start making friends in areas where they are screwing you and share, i am sure the walk drive or whatever do ya some good and on top of it YOUR not putting cash INTO THE IMPERIAL EMPIRE er evil ones er corporates that don't understand want customers want.
reply
anon @ 24th Apr 08:43PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

The, its about the shareholders is as valid as the need to charge more for the same service. The shareholders are not getting anymore of anything. The stock prices are deflating faster than a vanishing clown act, and anyone invested in the great shareholder wall street fiasco know that real well. Its about the fat cat execs at the top of these companys who are getting rich at every ones expense.
reply
hottboiinnc @ 24th Apr 09:49PM:
Re: I Would not Trust Verizon

I've been saying this all along.

VZ isn't stupid. They already know how much their customers use and they'll go based on those numbers.

Nobody wants the top .01% of heavy users on a residential line.

And as far as the Feds building out the line. That will NEVER happen.
reply
anon @ 24th Apr 11:14PM:
If I don't have reasonably priced options someday...

... then I will also look to cancel as much as possible and just use Netflix and such.

Sadly though, these type of capping policies will just stifle innovation and American competitiveness in the long term... so for the country's sake, I hope unreasonable caps never happen widely.
reply
dvd536 @ 25th Apr 12:44AM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

Actually ALL the tiers should be $10+usage just like the electric company does[base charge plus what you use]
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee

reply
Metatron2008 @ 25th Apr 03:07AM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

If we went by how much a person used on realistic terms, most people would be paying less for service.

Can't have that now can they?
reply
tmc8080 @ 25th Apr 07:59AM:
what this means

Telco had a captive business for broadband for quite a while.. though it was commercial ISDN & DSL to business customers. They never really wanted to get into the residenial broadband market for precisely the reasons cable companies today are dealing with-- increased consumption of bandwidth & 3rd party competitors to VOICE & VIDEO. The lure of course was to let telco into the video business which at the time was very lucrative and expanding.

The cable industry quietly sees their content increasingly going online around the web & p2p circuit without any effective way to deal with it. Along comes metered billing & bit cap inventions. This is clearly a warning shot in the ISP industry-- the majority of subscribers are on a CABLEMODEM service as opposed to a telco service (telco let their technology upgrades wither on the vine while sticking to ISDN & DSL networks for far too long). This means that as long as there isn't a viable alternative, your cable company (with few and farbetween exceptions) is trying to limit your consumption of bandwidth, particularly video content, however discrimination of types of content sparks net neutrality problems for the industry & privacy issues.

There are also the issues of market share, pricing & your competition's reaction. If telcos decide not to cap, they stand to gain plenty of market share-- if they go along with caps.. it will be seen as market collusion:

Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage. It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production. [1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties."[2] All acts affected by collusion are considered void.[3]

After all, for the time being it seems where the OIL industry goes.. others will likely be tempted to follow until we have energy diversity & independence from foreign soruces.

Keep in mind, you have the right to cancel service from a provider (cable or telco) who chooses to have an unfair advantage in the terms of service. As further punishment, you can take your video & voice & wireless subscriptions away from them too if your in a dual/triple/quad play.
reply
anon @ 25th Apr 09:46AM:
horse shit

Metered Billing is horse shit want people to stay no Metered Billing fios fios fios will be every where what then oops sorry about that Metered Billing thing ........... aaaaaaaa ok
reply
jadebangle @ 25th Apr 11:28AM:
Re: Only reason

said by kb_019 :

said by majortom1029 :

The only reason why verizon is not doing metered billing is because they have competition. It has nothing to do with the network and all to do with MONEY.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

Should the cable broadband providers ever succeed in getting metered/capped service passed in major markets Verizon will definitely follow their lead.

Thus the importance in fighting metered/capped service anywhere...
There are much more bandwidth available on fiber network
So much bandwidth that all user connected at 50 to 100mbps will see no slowdown or congestion regardless of how much you use
Ain't that the beauty of better technology
copper kiss our a** goodbye :)
reply
jadebangle @ 25th Apr 11:31AM:
Re: Metered Billing is GOOD For Me!

said by datwell1 :

Yes! I wish all of Verizon's competitors would implement metered billing with really low caps right away!

My Verizon stock would rise even more!

I love my FiOS!

--Doug
It is impossible to compete with FIOS
You sir are comparing a bicycle to a car
FIOS has the capacity for any speed the only limit is our hardware. I have heard that 1gbps, 10gbps, and 100gbps are possible... but that's the future and fiber has not even scratch the surface yet :)
reply
ispgeek @ 25th Apr 04:16PM:
Silly Karl...

As usual Karl loves to rant on and on about his favorite company (for those of us less read...that would be Verizon) and as usual he goes on and on about how Verizon is setting the pace for the industry...yawn.

What he fails to say about Verizon is that they pretty much suck around the country in every category that a consumer would consider important in any service relationship.

Rather than go on and on (like Karl) I'm gonna make it simple and give ya the straight facts. Facts are that in almost every region around the country that Verizon serves they have big problems. Simply stated...their customers hate them, their business practices are seriously in question and most consumer watchdogs don't just say walk away from Verizon...they say RUN!

Let's use one such organization that's been around for a very long time and is pretty much respected by all.

Since I can easily produce the results from my state...here goes...

The Better Business Bureau rates all kinds of companies based on consumer feedback, complaints, business practices etc... Here are the ratings for Verizon...

Verizon Telephone - Tampa Florida - All Regions
Rating - F

»www.bbb.org/west-florida/busines···-1004452

Verizon Online - Tampa Florida - All Regions
Rating - F

»www.bbb.org/west-florida/busines···18002356

So that before anyone goes out thinking that Verizon is out to save the world and the consumer at large read those reports and get the facts. Verizon (and Karl) only care about Verizon... that's it. They could care less about a competitive marketplace just so that the marketplace favors them.

Oh and Karl...

"So keep an eye on Verizon. As Verizon's thinking goes, so goes the entire market."

Now that's funny! All I have to say is you better hope not...
reply
raybrett @ 25th Apr 06:58PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

Odd - my calculator keeps coming up with $10 billion for 200,000 x $50,000.
reply
albundyhere @ 26th Apr 01:19AM:
yet TWC's incompetence continues...

"A press release from the company this week proclaims that "unlike some cable providers, Verizon doesn't penalize subscribers for using all the speed they need." They've also previously hinted that meters are a symptom of inadequate cable networks."

wow, that just says it all! Complete, pure and utter incompetence on time warner cable's behalf. unbelievable, you actually get what you pay for with verizon! i guess TWC has alot to learn about business. Time to fire en-mass those idiot execs that put this through...

if the metered billing did go through, it would be the end of ALL video streaming sites, including Hulu, youtube, etc. In fact, it would probably force everyone to go back to dialup. Eventually TWC would get even more greedy and turn the pay-by-GB to pay-by-MB and so on.

To end my rant, all i have to say is that TWC currently steals from subscribers by massively overselling their nodes and not maintaining their infrastructure. The metered billing thing was just a nail in their coffin.
reply
Mark F @ 26th Apr 07:27AM:
Re: Rogers and Bell played that game in Canada ... for a while

When Verizon starts offering video downloading and streaming sometime this summer, then what? Will they limit the types (and length) of content we can watch?
Mark F.
reply
jadebangle @ 26th Apr 10:16AM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

said by wwdubbia :

said by DGLewis :

said by espaeth :

The 10K balance sheet only shows direct costs (power, hardware, maintenance, vendor fees) and not indirect costs like operating the service vehicle fleet, developing tech training programs, paying employee salaries + benefits, call center operation costs, etc.
And those indirect costs scale not with traffic, but with number of customers. The number of trucks, technicians, and call center workers you need doesn't change whether your customers are using 10 GB/month, 100 GB/month, or 1000 GB/month.
and it would be safe to assume that these costs would go down due to the caps. e.g. less customers = lesser need for technicians/truck rolls
Cost has gone down but our usage has not :)
The more we use the less it cost
on the other hand, the less we use the more it cost
buy more, pay less! lol

buy large quantity save money!
reply
anon @ 26th Apr 12:33PM:
Re: Metered Billing Has Its Place

Just out of curiosity, which companies have you worked for? I have been in business over 15 years, and I have yet to see a company with profit margins in the 1000's of % over cost. Think about it, if a car costs $15k, then you are saying that the 'physical cost' would only be in the $1500 range? I don't think so. I have worked in the automotive support industry.
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC