Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
|  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. |
|
mig288
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Merchantville, NJ |  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? |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
|  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.
|
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| 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. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | reply to Matt
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. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| 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 |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Lazlow
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. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| 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! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Matt
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 |
|
jammmin
join:2000-12-14
Upper Marlboro, MD | reply to sbrook
Re: Rogers and Bell played that game in Canada ... for a while
Verizon is being coy. They are taking a wait and see attitude. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to mig288
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 |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to Lazlow
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. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | 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). |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
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! |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to TKJunkMail
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. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to espaeth
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. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to S_engineer
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. |
|
the tribble
join:2008-09-10
New York, NY
| 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. |
|
Metatron2008
join:2008-09-02
Stockbridge, GA | reply to espaeth
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. |
|
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| reply to Matt
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 |
|
