Slashdot Mirror
Web Usage-Based Billing On Its Way
tripleevenfall writes with this excerpt from SFGate:
"The days of watching movies on the cheap via the Web may soon be over. Time Warner Cable and U.S. pay-TV companies are on the verge of instituting new fees on Web-access customers who use the most data. ... U.S. providers have weighed usage-based plans for years as a way to squeeze more profit from Web access, and to counter slowing growth and rising program costs in the TV business. While customer complaints hampered earlier attempts, pay-TV companies are testing usage caps and price structures that point to the advent of permanent fees. ... Cable's best option is to find ways to profit from the online shift, said [analyst Craig Moffett]. If the companies were to lose all of their video customers, the revenue decline would be more than offset by lower programming fees and set-top box spending. 'In the end, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the cable industry,' Moffett said."
Thats the point though- this would theoretically be perpetrated by the cable providers, and they attempt to recoup all of their lost tv revenue via increased internet costs.
Comcast already did it without usage based billing- I have internet only and they jacked it up to $70/month from $40, if I bought a internet + tv package it'd be $75.
i think the Dutch model would be far more attractive:
force the network operators to allow 3de party providers on their network at reasonable fee's
instant competition. and the ones with data-limits didn't last long in the Dutch market.
all the benefits of a free-market system, without the risk of monopolies that are ruining the US ISP market.
And everyone will soon follow.... Everything will eventually be tiered pricing.
The amount of miles you drive determine the price you pay for gas at the pump.
The amount of food you eat determines the amount you pay.
Grant it, this is currently being applied to non-essential services, such as data plans and someday broadband internet and cable TV, but with dwindling natural resources, this is likely to happen to where you pay less if you consume less...
The problem is it creates the wrong incentives. Data is not like water or gas where you can save it by not using it. The fixed costs are the same no matter how much bandwith we use, and any bandwidth we don't use is lost forever. This means we should encourage people to use more bandwidth, and if we don't have enough, we should build more infrastructure. Usage based billing encourages us to waste network capacity, and discourages ISPs from building out infrastructure. Why spend money to upgrade the network when you can make money by charging the heavy users instead?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Thats the point though- this would theoretically be perpetrated by the cable providers, and they attempt to recoup all of their lost tv revenue via increased internet costs.
Comcast already did it without usage based billing- I have internet only and they jacked it up to $70/month from $40, if I bought a internet + tv package it'd be $75.
Canadian cable provider Shaw posted their new rate plans for internet only (were to start in November).. same thing, there was basically no difference between internet only and internet+cable in cost. I said "see ya!" and switched to a dsl provider at a substantial discount to the new internet rates.
You have to go deep into the Shaw cable website to find the real internet package pricing -- on their main page they proudly announced "29.95" for "Broadband 50". Going into the details:
INTRODUCTORY OFFER
For 6 Months
$29.95/mo
Bundled Price
$59.00/mo
Standalone Price
$74.90/mo
There are some older packages available, not well advertised, and probably to be deleted in the future. Still, basic internet (when you find it on their site) is $42.50 a month with TV, and $52.50 a month without. That's at least $10 more than basic DSL service around here.
Actually, you are making one very honest, but very big mistake. You think that the next generation are just like you, they know what TV is, they like it, they watch it. Which is, simply said, not true. They are different, they are interested in different kind of entertainment, in different model of media, i could say. So, with other words, in your lifetime, say the next 10 years, there will be a great shift and changes of what media is, how to distribute it, how to pay it, and that model is simply not compatible with the current one.
I never quite understood the moral panic that seems to appear when this comes up. Asking people to pay for what they use doesn't seem like *that* radical a concept to me.
* If you run more appliances, your electric bill goes up
* If you drive a longer distance, you need to buy more gas
* If you make a lot of cell phone calls, your bill goes up
* If you eat more, you pay more for the groceries
Why is Internet use seen differently?
And before someone says, "I'm paying for X megabits/second, I should get that!", please understand that your feed connects you to the next upstream concentration point (switch, router, whatever). Beyond that, it's all shared bandwidth, and oversubscribed. That's one of the chief benefits of a packet-switched network -- you don't need to dedicate a circuit to each subscriber. Asking for dedicated connectivity the whole way[1] is asking for a return to the days of leased lines, where you paid thousands of dollars a month for 1.54 Mbit/sec.
[1] And, of course, the Internet doesn't have a "whole way".
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
It is really bad when they are not even making the argument that bandwidth is costing too much. They are just making the argument that because they are losing money in department A they are going to raise prices in department B. Perhaps we just shouldn't let Internet Content Providers be Internet Service Providers.
To the telcos, community owned utilities are the most feared development that could happen, and with good reason. But the vendors in the industry, from the fiber makers to the equipment makers are also in the pockets of the telcos. They know who butters their bread, and they're not going to ally the development of community network in any way.
It's NOT a socialism vs capitalism vs communism problem. It's a continuation of corporations protecting their turf.
Yet we've seen this before. We fought it then, we'll fight it again. In my estimation, I granted Comcast a right of way on my property. They change things, they lose that right of way. Get in the spirit of owning your own property again, and we'll get back to why we allow utilities to do what they do. We're the people.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Agreed. This is just going to have phone companies aggressively rolling out fiber. They've already lost their landline customers for good. Cable's not convinced people aren't going back to TV. In the meantime, the telephone companies can steal them all back. Personally, I'm in a decent sized city that doesn't have DSL at my address. Why? I have no idea. Here's hoping for fiber or VDSL in the next couple years.
to fight this? The general public in America is so apathetic anymore that this is inevitable. Sure, we bitch and complain a lot, but when it comes time to actually do anything, nothing materializes. I'm genuinely surprised that the "Occupy" movement has lasted as long as it has, I figured it would fizzle completely in a few days. But, back to the point, this is a bad idea for me, the consumer. I don't give a rat's @ss that cable companies' profits are shrinking. That's not my fault. Put something worth watching on television at a convenient time and I'll sit down and watch it. I'll even watch the commercials. But the fact that I watch little to no network television is solely due to poor decisions on the parts of the providers and studios. Stop paying actors such ridiculous salaries, fire the horrible writers and get people with writing skills and tell compelling stories. Fire the executives that rake in disgusting paychecks and keep demanding dumbed down crap, "reality shows" and bad reboots. But don't tell me that I have to now pay more for my internet because you can't manage your finances like a grown up! But seriously, what do we do to prevent this from happening? I can cancel my internet.... oh wait, Comcast has a monopoly in my area so I can't leave. I can post a rant on Slashdot.... oh wait, that won't do anything. I can tell my neighbors about this and try to raise awareness, maybe organize a protest.... oh wait, it's America, they'll get all fired up, but never actually get off the couch. I can call my congressman.... oh wait, he's in the cable companies pocket. I can call Comcast and complain... oh wait, they don't give a $hit what I think. So what do we do? And not just about this, but about a lot of things. Look at the state America is in today, and on pretty much every issue, we the people are backed into a corner and have no real options. Personally, I'm ready to get out the pitchforks and torches.
We really need to start thinking about things like mesh networks, with the proposed censorship bills and monopolistic ISPs doing with us as they please. I realize this is not exactly feasible at the moment, at least outside of densely populated areas, but we need to start thinking of alternatives to the current status quo.
giggity
What about business services? They are normally charged based on bandwidth pipe, not volume.
I don't think the proposal is well thought out.
Figure out what the top 10% of users use, draw a line there and say it's an extra $5 each month you surpass it.
Except, it turns out that the "problem" is not bandwidth hogs.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Really important thing to note from the article. They mention the profit margins on the broadband services are 95%. Anyone remember that bullshit about them needing to manage their networks because bandwidth was so pricey? If it's so pricey then how are they making 95% profit? I mean on my 69.00 a month data bill they are paying a total of 3.45 in fixed costs. That includes installation, support, sales, marketing, accounting etc... So the bandwidth cost is probably less than a buck. Wow pricey. They are such fucking greedy money grubbing boldface liars that think we are stupid enough not remember they said that. Most business don't enjoy 95% margins except for like high end audio and jewelry. Remember this the next time they start spouting bullshit about how put upon they are for us actually using the network we fucking paid for and they are reaping huge profits from. I hate these people.
Look at your $60-120 cable bill and tell me there isn't something else that would make you happy with that money.
We downgraded our cable service to basic. Instead of $90/month, we pay $30. I smile every month when I look at the bill and realize that there's $60 less per month going to the cable company. That makes me happy. I don't even need to spend the money on anything else. I could crumple up six ten-dollar bills and throw them in the gutter and feel happy that I wasn't sending them to the cable company.
Downgraded? We got rid of ours entirely. Decided we couldn't even find $30 worth of entertainment on cable.
Haven't missed it yet, and it's been 3 years.