Right now, the ISPs are charging the same price to heavy users and light users. Heavy users cost the ISP more than light users. Therefore, their profit motive is to maximize light users and minimize heavy users.
Tiering would align their profit motive with heavy users (due to volume discounts).
As long as heavy users keep demanding that light users subsidize their usage, by not charging differential pricing, the ISPs will continue to be profit motivated to cut off heavy users. They will continue to be on the side of content restriction. They will continue to be the enemy of we heavy users.
Choose your poison: Get the ISPs on our side by letting them profit from our heavy usage, or keep them in an antagonistic position towards us. I like getting free money from light users, but it's not a healthy market strategy. It puts me in an adversarial relationship with my ISP. I'd rather pay for what I use and have them treat me as their golden customer.
Support tiered pricing (and net neutrality - which 1's and 0's is none of their damned business). Get the ISPs back on our side (like they were in the 90's, when we geeks were their only customers). It'll cost more, but we'll be the golden-haired boys again. Stop demanding free stuff you cheap fuckers.
Um, we "heavy users" don't demand anything except that the company is up front and honest with us about what we're getting for what we're paying. Selling me "unlimited" service which is actually subject to undocumented caps is not honest.
I wholeheartedly agree. That blatant false advertising should have been stamped out long ago. I've been railing against 'unlimited' for as long as they've been lying through their teeth in saying it.
By that argument, when I go to a buffet my 4 trips to the pasta bar are subsidized by the poor guy who could only make 3. If you're going to advertise for all-you-can-eat, shouldn't you have to provide it?
By that argument, when I go to a buffet my 4 trips to the pasta bar are subsidized by the poor guy who could only make 3. If you're going to advertise for all-you-can-eat, shouldn't you have to provide it?
Absolutely. The ISPs should also be charged, convicted, and brutally penalized for the false advertising they have premeditatedly engaged in for years.
A: It was never all-you-can-eat to begin with. As someone else pointed out above, "unlimited" originally meant unlimited connection time (aka always-on), not unlimited data. This is also technically wrong since your connection time is limited by the number of hours in a month, but it's not really misleading.
B: "All you can eat" works because human stomach capacities are not very large. If a few customers tried to eat a thousand times the average meal, they would most certainly be thrown out. In reality, the
A: It was never all-you-can-eat to begin with. As someone else pointed out above, "unlimited" originally meant unlimited connection time (aka always-on), not unlimited data. This is also technically wrong since your connection time is limited by the number of hours in a month, but it's not really misleading.
I think it was misleading because they weren't very clear by what they meant in their marketing, and in my opinion, that lack of clarity was probably intentional. If they're going to place caveats on what they mean by unlimited, they should have been up front about it. Letting them weasel out of it by telling us they really meant always-connected doesn't do us any good.
Another problem I have with the way it was done is that the ISPs in question have kicked people off for excessive use while avoiding telli
What if I bring my pet elephant to the pasta bar? He's a big fan of lasagna. He can down the entire bar in one trip. Mind the back end, it can get a little messy.
Your analogy would work if certain people were consuming 100 times the average person in pasta, but I doubt any restaurant is going to allow such a customer to stay. The problems many of these ISPs face is complex. They don't have the right people, technical culture, or budget. They simply do what they can with a typical mass-consumer grade service
I notice they never offer a discounted rate for the Grandma who only uses her broadband to check her email once a week. Funny how these caps or premium charges only work in the favor of the ISP, isn't it?
I notice they never offer a discounted rate for the Grandma who only uses her broadband to check her email once a week. Funny how these caps or premium charges only work in the favor of the ISP, isn't it?
And sad. Between the lack of healthy competition and the fact that Grandma has to subsidize me, the market is totally unfair to Grandma. I wholeheartedly support increased competition which, coupled with tiered pricing, would drive down the cost to low-consumption users.
Heavy users do not cost the companies more, if those companies actually know how to configure their packet priority queues. Most don't, however. That's their own fault.
Heavy users do not cost the companies more, if those companies actually know how to configure their packet priority queues. Most don't, however. That's their own fault.
Suppose two identical networks with different users. Network A has 100 low volume users, typical sporadic email and web browsing stuff. Network B has 100 high volume users - people like me who often keep their last mile saturated for hours, or even days, at a time.
Network A has a peak load of 500 mbit, and an average rate of 10 mbit. Network
In the form of speed. and really, that s all the tiering I think is needed. People with lower bandwidth aren't going to be streaming video as people with high bandwidth would.
If they're going to price according to amount of data transferred, everyone should get the same speed guarantee, at least where possible (as would be the case with DSL and distance).
Business works more efficiently by milking money out of the average customer than by chasing after VIPs. Since users are willing to pay $50/month, this means a solution to the "problem" would be to charge $12/GB. I don't see where heavy users need come into it at all.
I think you raise some very valid issues. I further think that most of what you describe could be solved with increased competition, transparency, and diligent guarding against anti-competitive behavior.
I'm not sure exactly how to achieve those things, though projects like http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/23/1521218 [slashdot.org]Greenlight and fighting TWC's brand of corporate-protectionist legislature seem like good starts.
I am by no means a champion of the ISPs. I want a healthy free market and the maximum
Right now, the ISPs are charging the same price to heavy users and light users. Heavy users cost the ISP more than light users. Therefore, their profit motive is to maximize light users and minimize heavy users.
There's an Elephant that you are ignoring. Comcast residential "promises" to move up to 250GB/month for a fee of $46/month. I can get 3TB/month of transit through 1&1 [1and1.com] for $20/month. Hell, I can get 300GB/month through them for $4/month.
If you don't like 1&1, you can hop on over to godaddy.com [godaddy.com]. Their most expensive 300GB/month plan is $5/month. Their most expensive "wide open throttle" plan (which must be at least 1.5TB/month, seeing as how that's their next smallest plan [which is $7/month, at worst])
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.
-- Superchicken
Gee, No Shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, the ISPs are charging the same price to heavy users and light users. Heavy users cost the ISP more than light users. Therefore, their profit motive is to maximize light users and minimize heavy users.
Tiering would align their profit motive with heavy users (due to volume discounts).
As long as heavy users keep demanding that light users subsidize their usage, by not charging differential pricing, the ISPs will continue to be profit motivated to cut off heavy users. They will continue to be on the side of content restriction. They will continue to be the enemy of we heavy users.
Choose your poison: Get the ISPs on our side by letting them profit from our heavy usage, or keep them in an antagonistic position towards us. I like getting free money from light users, but it's not a healthy market strategy. It puts me in an adversarial relationship with my ISP. I'd rather pay for what I use and have them treat me as their golden customer.
Support tiered pricing (and net neutrality - which 1's and 0's is none of their damned business). Get the ISPs back on our side (like they were in the 90's, when we geeks were their only customers). It'll cost more, but we'll be the golden-haired boys again. Stop demanding free stuff you cheap fuckers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, we "heavy users" don't demand anything except that the company is up front and honest with us about what we're getting for what we're paying. Selling me "unlimited" service which is actually subject to undocumented caps is not honest.
I wholeheartedly agree. That blatant false advertising should have been stamped out long ago. I've been railing against 'unlimited' for as long as they've been lying through their teeth in saying it.
Re:Gee, No Shit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
By that argument, when I go to a buffet my 4 trips to the pasta bar are subsidized by the poor guy who could only make 3. If you're going to advertise for all-you-can-eat, shouldn't you have to provide it?
Absolutely. The ISPs should also be charged, convicted, and brutally penalized for the false advertising they have premeditatedly engaged in for years.
Re: (Score:2)
But if they're already in your store then you cant change the terms mid meal.
Re: (Score:2)
A: It was never all-you-can-eat to begin with. As someone else pointed out above, "unlimited" originally meant unlimited connection time (aka always-on), not unlimited data. This is also technically wrong since your connection time is limited by the number of hours in a month, but it's not really misleading.
B: "All you can eat" works because human stomach capacities are not very large. If a few customers tried to eat a thousand times the average meal, they would most certainly be thrown out. In reality, the
Re: (Score:2)
A: It was never all-you-can-eat to begin with. As someone else pointed out above, "unlimited" originally meant unlimited connection time (aka always-on), not unlimited data. This is also technically wrong since your connection time is limited by the number of hours in a month, but it's not really misleading.
I think it was misleading because they weren't very clear by what they meant in their marketing, and in my opinion, that lack of clarity was probably intentional. If they're going to place caveats on what they mean by unlimited, they should have been up front about it. Letting them weasel out of it by telling us they really meant always-connected doesn't do us any good.
Another problem I have with the way it was done is that the ISPs in question have kicked people off for excessive use while avoiding telli
Re: (Score:2)
What if I bring my pet elephant to the pasta bar? He's a big fan of lasagna. He can down the entire bar in one trip. Mind the back end, it can get a little messy.
Your analogy would work if certain people were consuming 100 times the average person in pasta, but I doubt any restaurant is going to allow such a customer to stay. The problems many of these ISPs face is complex. They don't have the right people, technical culture, or budget. They simply do what they can with a typical mass-consumer grade service
Re: (Score:1)
I believe what he is saying is for the ISP's to stop advertising "All you can eat buffet's" and introduce tier'd systems.
Re: (Score:2)
I notice they never offer a discounted rate for the Grandma who only uses her broadband to check her email once a week. Funny how these caps or premium charges only work in the favor of the ISP, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
I notice they never offer a discounted rate for the Grandma who only uses her broadband to check her email once a week. Funny how these caps or premium charges only work in the favor of the ISP, isn't it?
And sad. Between the lack of healthy competition and the fact that Grandma has to subsidize me, the market is totally unfair to Grandma. I wholeheartedly support increased competition which, coupled with tiered pricing, would drive down the cost to low-consumption users.
Re: (Score:2)
Heavy users do not cost the companies more, if those companies actually know how to configure their packet priority queues. Most don't, however. That's their own fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Heavy users do not cost the companies more, if those companies actually know how to configure their packet priority queues. Most don't, however. That's their own fault.
Suppose two identical networks with different users. Network A has 100 low volume users, typical sporadic email and web browsing stuff. Network B has 100 high volume users - people like me who often keep their last mile saturated for hours, or even days, at a time.
Network A has a peak load of 500 mbit, and an average rate of 10 mbit. Network
Tiered pricing already exists... (Score:2)
If they're going to price according to amount of data transferred, everyone should get the same speed guarantee, at least where possible (as would be the case with DSL and distance).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you raise some very valid issues. I further think that most of what you describe could be solved with increased competition, transparency, and diligent guarding against anti-competitive behavior.
I'm not sure exactly how to achieve those things, though projects like http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/23/1521218 [slashdot.org]Greenlight and fighting TWC's brand of corporate-protectionist legislature seem like good starts.
I am by no means a champion of the ISPs. I want a healthy free market and the maximum
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, the ISPs are charging the same price to heavy users and light users. Heavy users cost the ISP more than light users. Therefore, their profit motive is to maximize light users and minimize heavy users.
There's an Elephant that you are ignoring.
Comcast residential "promises" to move up to 250GB/month for a fee of $46/month.
I can get 3TB/month of transit through 1&1 [1and1.com] for $20/month. Hell, I can get 300GB/month through them for $4/month.
If you don't like 1&1, you can hop on over to godaddy.com [godaddy.com]. Their most expensive 300GB/month plan is $5/month. Their most expensive "wide open throttle" plan (which must be at least 1.5TB/month, seeing as how that's their next smallest plan [which is $7/month, at worst])