Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| reply to aaronwt
Re: Why? said by aaronwt:Since you mention the electric comapny, the easiest billing method to understand would be like how the electric company bills. You pay for what you use.
Then people who use a little would only pay a little. And people who use alot would pay more. There is still a base monthly charge to cover the costs of the connection to the grid, meter maintenance, etc. Where I used to live that charge was $16/mo and accounted for more than a third of my total electric bill.
said by aaronwt:if anything, having a cap is a detriment to the people who use very little bandwidth. Since a person who only uses 50GB a month will be paying the same amount as a person who uses 250GB. (Of course assuming they are on the same speed tier)
I agree, caps are stupid. That's why I said percentile billing makes more sense. Someone who uses 256kbit/s 24/7 places less of a burden on the network than someone who uses 7.5mbit/s for 24 hours. Both consume the same number of bytes but the latter requires a greater infrastructure investment on the part of the ISP.
The major advantage to caps is they are easier for the end user to understand. They are also set high enough that they impact a very small percentage of the total customer base. |
|
| 5% max allowable utilization is not "high" by any definition. And your percentile billing doesn't make sense unless costs are actually tied to expenses. I.e. a "cap" on Comcast's profit. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| said by Wilsdom:5% max allowable utilization is not "high" by any definition. It's not "max allowable", you pay for what you use and get to burst above that 5% of the time. 36 hours out of the month you can use as much bandwidth as you want (or as your ISP can deliver) without being billed for it. Peering arrangements and large corporate connections have been billed this way for decades without issue.
said by Wilsdom:I.e. a "cap" on Comcast's profit.
Good luck with that. |
|
