Do I like the idea of paying higher monthly fees? Of course not. Is it fair? Entirely.
Unlimited usage flat rates came into being for internet access when it became clear that very few end users were pushing the set limits. A flat rate was a good marketing strategy that ultimately didn't cost ISPs anything. And even saved them from the complications of implementing/billing a tiered or per-usage rate. As the feasibility and ease of downloading large files (primarily video) has increased, more and more end users are consuming higher bandwidth, and the flat rates begin to make less sense.
It's actually a little amazing to think that ISP flat rates have lasted for 10+ years.
James Thomas
· 1 year ago
It's entirely amazing that cable internet and television has only gotten more expensive in the last 10 years. Why does sweden have 5 times the in-home speed that americans do? Do they pay as much as we do?
And the bullshit part of all of this is that there is no alternative!
Sobchak
· 1 year ago
I'm so conflicted.
But I have to say, the idea of charging a slightly higher rate overall and then giving consumers who pull off less, a smaller monthly fee could be a nice customer service/marketing angle.
As long as the standard rate wasn't too crazy.
Flat rates are getting 'abused' more and more so it's gonna be inevitable that the pipe hogs are going to have to pay more...
*oink*
phil
· 1 year ago
I'm not sure if I agree with the above comments. Rich media is going to be downloaded more and more over the coming years. How long will it be before all ad's are video ad's? where most people turn on their computer log into their social network (probably some kind of aggregator) watch numerous video's form their friends, and then jump on the cam to talk with family? It will not be long before everyone from a teenager to their grandparent's is going to be a "big downloader".
Sobchak
· 1 year ago
I agree totally Phil, and that's probably part of what some of the suits are struggling with... defining what a 'big downloader' is. That's a moving target in several different ways.
So perhaps coming up with a different way of measuring that might be helpful.
Then again, as bandwidth and processor technology continues to improve and dovetail, pushing data should theoretically become more cost effective allowing a thicker margin for providers.
But it's hard to argue against the idea that soon, we'll all be what was considered a 'heavy downloader' in the past. Even using the term 'DOWNLOADING' seems archaic to me at this point.
Actually, even the distinction between 'offline' and 'online' media consumption is getting blurry.
Cheap Berlin
· 1 year ago
Yes, it seems fair. Your grandmother only requires the basic subscription to send an e-mail while you are downloading 4 seasons of The Wire during the night.
Jon Smirl
· 1 year ago
They will have to stop advertising unlimited access. Of course they will put their bandwidth limits into fine print that needs a layer and a microscope to read.
It's not the 5% of the people using the net that is the problem. TW only wants the 95% of people that will pay $40/mth to read their email from home. Those people are greatly over paying for what they consume and are very profitable.
Peer to peer relies on upload bandwidth. Most cable systems cap you at 128-384K up while giving you 6Mb down. A better solution for this would be to lower the upload speed to 32K and give "free" bursts to 1Mb for say upto 10MB an hour.
To see how much they are loosing (if any) assume 384K up 24/7 for a month. That's 124GB/mth in transit fees worst case. At $0.50/GB that's $64. failt to
Peter
· 1 year ago
While I'm not completely crazy about the idea, I know that I'm not even close to the top 10% of downloaders. We watch some streaming media, but we aren't into bittorrent for movies and tons of binaries. My biggest concern is that these limits will be arbitrary or really, really low before you've "downloaded too much". Need two different Linux DVDs one month? Sorry - that put you over the limit and you're in the next bracket.
Still, is it fair? Definitely. Would I like it if I were a heavy downloader? Probably not, but it would cause me to re-think what I'm downloading and whether it's worth it or not. :-)
-Pete
Independent
· 1 year ago
The reason its not fair is because I seriously doubt that they would be offering refunds to people who don't use much bandwith.
Do I get a free month if I go out of town? Not likely.
bonakdar
· 1 year ago
As a Time Warner user for over a year now, forced after they bought my ISP out, I can say it has been a terrible experience. I used to use Dial-up in 1996 and it wasnt this bad. Different people use the internet for different things, gamers vs. shoppers vs. media sharers... Time warner has been the worst experience in 12 years and they have a great strategy of getting worse while retaining customers. Is this fair? I could see why, it might be, but to the extent I imagine TW will take it? I doubt it.
Mark Evans
· 1 year ago
This isn't an extraordinary move. In Canada, Rogers has bandwidth caps that kick in if you're a major downloader. For the vast majority of people, they rarely come anywhere close to the cap even if they are an enthusiastic user of online videos, P2P, etc. In Britain, BT offers tiered broadband services (bronze, silver, gold) based on your usage. When you order the service, they pick your usage profile and then pick the appropriate tier.
clonolu
· 1 year ago
Price difference related to downloaded GBs = people trying to reduce downloaded data.
There are two ways customers can do that: 1. They will cut off stuff they don't want to see when using internet = blocking ads = less money in the business, lower motivation for dot.coms to invest, slower development of the internet etc.
2. They will reduce stuff they want - downloading movies, listening to radio streams, generally being on-line at all = less money in the business, lower motivation for dot.coms to invest, slower development of the internet at all.
Both of them mean lower usability and utility of internet, lower motivation to use it for ISPs customers, less money for ISPs.
Why would ISP want to apply strategy lowering it own revenue?
All Comments
Unlimited usage flat rates came into being for internet access when it became clear that very few end users were pushing the set limits. A flat rate was a good marketing strategy that ultimately didn't cost ISPs anything. And even saved them from the complications of implementing/billing a tiered or per-usage rate. As the feasibility and ease of downloading large files (primarily video) has increased, more and more end users are consuming higher bandwidth, and the flat rates begin to make less sense.
It's actually a little amazing to think that ISP flat rates have lasted for 10+ years.
And the bullshit part of all of this is that there is no alternative!
But I have to say, the idea of charging a slightly higher rate overall and then giving consumers who pull off less, a smaller monthly fee could be a nice customer service/marketing angle.
As long as the standard rate wasn't too crazy.
Flat rates are getting 'abused' more and more so it's gonna be inevitable that the pipe hogs are going to have to pay more...
*oink*
So perhaps coming up with a different way of measuring that might be helpful.
Then again, as bandwidth and processor technology continues to improve and dovetail, pushing data should theoretically become more cost effective allowing a thicker margin for providers.
But it's hard to argue against the idea that soon, we'll all be what was considered a 'heavy downloader' in the past. Even using the term 'DOWNLOADING' seems archaic to me at this point.
Actually, even the distinction between 'offline' and 'online' media consumption is getting blurry.
It's not the 5% of the people using the net that is the problem. TW only wants the 95% of people that will pay $40/mth to read their email from home. Those people are greatly over paying for what they consume and are very profitable.
Peer to peer relies on upload bandwidth. Most cable systems cap you at 128-384K up while giving you 6Mb down. A better solution for this would be to lower the upload speed to 32K and give "free" bursts to 1Mb for say upto 10MB an hour.
To see how much they are loosing (if any) assume 384K up 24/7 for a month. That's 124GB/mth in transit fees worst case. At $0.50/GB that's $64. failt to
Still, is it fair? Definitely. Would I like it if I were a heavy downloader? Probably not, but it would cause me to re-think what I'm downloading and whether it's worth it or not. :-)
-Pete
Do I get a free month if I go out of town? Not likely.
There are two ways customers can do that:
1. They will cut off stuff they don't want to see when using internet = blocking ads = less money in the business, lower motivation for dot.coms to invest, slower development of the internet etc.
2. They will reduce stuff they want - downloading movies, listening to radio streams, generally being on-line at all = less money in the business, lower motivation for dot.coms to invest, slower development of the internet at all.
Both of them mean lower usability and utility of internet, lower motivation to use it for ISPs customers, less money for ISPs.
Why would ISP want to apply strategy lowering it own revenue?