Slashdot Mirror
Verizon CTO Argues For Metered Pricing
CNet is reporting on a press conference and speech given by Verizon's CTO, Dick Lynch, at the FTTH Conference & Expo in Houston, in which he advocated for metered broadband pricing. "Lynch said during that press conference according to reports that in the future broadband service will likely be sold in packages based on how much bandwidth a person consumes. This metered approach is similar to how the wireless industry has operated. ... 'We're going to have to consider pricing structures that allow us to sell packages of bytes, and at the end of the day the concept of a flat-rate infinitely expandable service is unachievable,' GigaOm quoted him as saying. ... Lynch didn't say that Verizon had metered broadband plans in the works today. And he was quick to point out that the company is not shifting its pricing, But he did say that he hoped the that the Federal Communication Commission's plans to make Net neutrality principles formal regulation would not hurt broadband providers' ability to offer such premium bandwidth offerings, Telephony Online reported."
Sounds like a good way to kill, just about everything one would use for entertainment on the web, streaming videos, games, etc etc
I know this has been talked about before by other providers, but it's still a bad idea for the end user. Just yet another way for them to offer less and make more money, typical corporate greed mongering, nothing more.
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
Oh yes, it would be a shame to lose such great deals. I mean, it's worked so well for cell phones.
That's why ISPs offer different plans... Slower with limits.... high-speed with limits and unlimited with basically double-price of slower and they still wanna make more... In the end they wanna turn everyone into cash-cows... Whats the point of having websites like youtube and what not if one can't even use it afraid of having to pay more?
Except it would turn into "how much money can we milk out of consumers before the internet dies". I wouldn't mind if I had to pay more so someone else who barely uses the internet could pay less. It's fair. The problem is that if Verizon could get away with this, it would mean I pay more, and people who barely use the internet pay what I do now. Fuck you Verizon.
"This metered approach is similar to how the wireless industry has operated."
Did he forget that many wireless providers are actually working towards unlimited plans? I pay for unlimited internet and unlimited text... If that wasn't all I used on my phone I'd probably pay for unlimited minutes too.
I can see the verizon dude now going.. Can you count the bytes now?..... Good....
As a Verizon dsl user (no fios) I have been quite happy with Verizon's service. If something like this *ever* were to happen, I would probably ditch my paltry 3mb connection and just start going to the local coffeshop/fast food places for my FREE connection... granted security isn't greatest, But I doubt anyone in my small town (pop 1500) is really watching their unsecured wireless network. On the other hand, there is more than one ISP serving my area with broadband, and I doubt all of them would go this route (at least in the short term).
I tried to put some quarters in my modem, but couldn't get any more bandwidth?! Come on, Verizon, make good on your word!
"But he did say that he hoped the that the Federal Communication Commission's plans to make Net neutrality principles formal regulation would not hurt broadband providers' ability to offer such premium bandwidth offerings, Telephony Online reported."
In other words he hopes they dont pass laws that prevent them from overpricing for fast internet in areas with no compatition.
n
If I'm paying for bytes, I'd like guaranteed rates to start with. I'd also like to speak with at least marginally competent staff when a problem occurs.
I would also assume that my lower bound on my bill is not going to be less than I'm paying right now since these are only going to be options if it will make them more money than any additional billing/administrative overhead will cost. Assuming I'm paying at least as much as I am now, then where is the added benefit for this 'service'?
Several of the upper-tier ISPs in the UK already operate on this pattern.
For example Andrews & Arnold offers 2GB peak ( 0900 - 1800 ) allowance as the basis and then charges 6UKP for each increment of 2GB used beyond this. IDNet has several base levels ( mine is 10GB peak ) and charges 1UKP per GB excess. Off-peak basic allowances are more generous but have the same excess charging model.
This permits the ISP to offer unthrottled, lower-contention Internet access to its customers. Yes, it is annoying that I have exceeded my base allowance for September but it's a small price to pay for a better connection and a real-live human on the support line.
This metered approach is similar to how the wireless industry has operated.
Did he forget or does he not know that a wireless link (one broadcast sector) is similar to a hub where all the data goes to all the users, but only the one that asked for it uses it, so the bandwidth is shared. Where as a wire (cat3, cat5, fiber, etc) can transmit the full speed to a single user and they do not have to share bandwidth and cannot see each others data.
They have 10+Gb/s [full-duplex] fiber and Ethernet, but the fastest PtP wireless link I have yet to see can only do around 4Gb/s [full-duplex] (Dragonwave) and the fastest PtMP that I know of can only do 103Mb/s [half-duplex / MiMo] (Ubiquti)
We started out with some metered services, then many small ISPs started offering connectivity at unmetered rates (they often didn't provide the services). The service providers matched the unmetered rates and many of the ISPs vanished. If they go to metered or raise the price too high, people will find another way to connect.
This is one market where it's really tough to maintain an expensive monopoly. I say if Verizion wants to do that they should. I'll miss my FIOS, but I'll switch over to someone else, no problem.
If they convince Comcast and the others to join them, maybe I'll start an ISP.
a company exec with a more appropriate name.
I live in Japan, and it only cost $60-80 USD a month to have a 100MB up & down fiber optic connection in every room of my house. I know Japan is only the size of California, but come on. Seriously, the US spends millions on beach sand and damn near nothing on real connections.
... it ought to be for the right reasons. I doubt that it is this time around. Nevertheless...
Is there anyone who honestly thinks there's something immoral about people paying specifically for what resources they actually consume, whether it's electricity, medical services, or Internet bandwidth? I'm a pretty solid socialist/consensualist, and even I think it's a very rational concept. It was once the way people paid for pretty much everything, until certain entrepreneurs discovered they could amass even more wealth by charging everyone a flat fee based on the "highest common denominator". Insurance companies make their wads of cash in pretty much the same way, don't they? It's potential abuse of metered usage that might make it immoral, not the concept itself.
Metered usage also serves as financial and economic feedback to keep people honest and make them think about the consequences of their choices and behavior. Do I *really* need to download that ISO of a Jenna Jameson porn DVD? Can you imagine how much less people would drive in their cars, or how much slower they would drive, for instance, if there was a cost in personal physical effort and discomfort for stepping on the accelerator, like there would be if they were riding a bicycle?
Metered usage forces people to make economically realistic choices, god forbid.
The harder thing ISP's need to do is set up some sort of reporting to show how much you have used up so far. Nobodies going to believe what the ISP tells them if there's no way to check themselves. Also I'd welcome something like this as long as it's per GB not something daft like per hour (and fairly cheap, aka £1 per GB max)
Metered pricing is used in many other places in the world. South Africa is a good example. It's just a great way for the providers to make lots of money and users to get the shaft. It limits innovation and provides zero incentive for service providers to increase capacity or quality of service.
Once metered Internet gets it's ugly, smelly foot in the door, it's nearly impossible to make it go away. Just say no.
get your fucking network to actually WORK. Maybe then you can discuss pricing on something that people can use instead of telling customers to "go find another carrier" as I was told when I moved into a dead zone. Yea, you know - those things that the commercials say DO NOT HAPPEN on their fucking wonderful NOTwork..... Idiots. ALL of them are fucking idiots.
iPod storage is advertised in terms of "song" and "movie" because normals don't know (or care) about bytes!
Apple sold their "inferior" device to zillions of people who don't care about how it's technically "less good" than other options, because they value things other than specifications - ease of use, style, etc. Those are valid selection criteria, even if *you* don't value them, obviously the market *does.*
Consumers on the whole will never understand nor care about "data". They will care about music and movies and other entertainment.
Remember "amuse" means
"a" - not
"muse" - think
We love our amusement.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
"Lynch said during that press conference according to reports that in the future wireless service will likely be sold in packages based on the speed of service a customer needs. This un-metered approach is similar to how the wired broadband industry has operated."
Fixed it for you. I don't know if you've heard about this "iPhone" and it's unlimited data plan? The traditional model is that customers get more features for less money. We're not really interested in spending more money to get less features. Companies that do that are generally what we call bankrupt.
However, now the burden of proof is on the provider part.
This means I want detailed billing telling me exactly what you are biling me for. When the downloads took place down to the minute/second, how many bytes were transfered. Legally, if they are charging your on a per use basis, they need to be able to document everything they are billing you for.
Dear Telco/Cableco, I'll take my 409 page printout monthly. Thanks, and enjoy the postage.
Another way to separate the haves from the have nots - the haves will get as much Internet access as they want, the have nots will likely not even want the added burden and expense. Imagine, every time you hit a search engine and check out results to decide if its the right one, you will have spent money. If I'm browsing the net, every hit will consume bandwidth and ultimately cost me. What happens to places that offer free web services like libraries, schools and community centers? I'll tell you, they'll start restricting what you can search for on the net. The providers will kick in by providing packages that give you quick access to what "you" want - i.e. prepackaged company approved websites. This is control people. When are we going to realize that it is our tax money that built the tubes? When are we going to realize that it is our taxes that subsidize the development? When are we going to realize that these companies are using lame excuses to profit?
Remember they don't "have to", they "want to". They are looking at the net from a business standpoint and as other posters pointed out they want to make more money for less. They want to control the product.
The question is ladies and gentlemen - are we going to let them?
I am a Verizon customer (the rest of my family) and an AT&T/iPhone customer. I had to turn off Internet on all my Verizon phones because the moment anyone did ANYTHING on the Internet, I was getting charged $5-10 in data usage. I'm obviously paying more for my unlimited iPhone Internet plan but the fact that I don't have to worry about getting socked with overages all the time means that I can do what I want with my phone with no angst. The net result is 85,000 apps, 50,000,000 users and a whole new multi-billion dollar business. Strikes me that people like Dick Lynch are a significant reason why this didn't happen on the Verizon network.
It seems that Mr Lynch wants to redefine bandwidth from the current meaning Verizon uses to charge more for faster connections (ie. transfer rate), to meaning usage (bytes transferred), for which they would also like to charge. In fact, it seems that all of the "providers" want to be paid for existing, and then overcharge for anyone who want to actually use their connection.
This is the same Verizon which first dropped all binary groups from their usenet offering, because about 1% of the groups might have contained porn, then dropped the groups completely. In both cases they said that their TOS allowed them to drop any service without lowering price or considering that a a breach of contract. They have terms of service which don't actually require them to provide anything, other than a monthly bill. This is Verizon which now blocks access to non-Verizon eMail providers unless they use a Verizon approved protocol instead of the standard POP3/SMTP protocols.
When I was in server support for Prodigy/SBC we simply whitelisted people for port 25 (SMTP) at the POP, Verizon doesn't seem to care, they explicitly have "no exceptions." Or for $300/mo you can get a real connection to the Internet from them