how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 mmay149qPremium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48 | reply to bemis
Re: You know, this should happen more often said by bemis:said by mmay149q:Yeah but FedEx doesn't charge you $50 to ship a package, plus x cents/dollars per gallon... That's what I'm getting at.
...With AT&T's $10 per 50GB you're paying 20 cents per GB. You're actually getting that if you're paying $50 for your connection with 250GB cap (it's not free, it's still 20 cents per GB) Which means you're getting screwed because the person on the $35 plan is paying 14 cents per GB, and still getting the same 250GB allotment. I may not be following you, but I think you're saying someone with a $50/mo plan is getting 250GB cap, and someone else with a $35/mo is also getting a 250GB cap, and that's not fair? But isn't the higher priced plan giving you a faster connection? To extend the FedEx analogy-- FedEx charges you $10 to ship a package from point A to point B in 7 days. They might charge you $20 to ship the same package between the same points, but in 2 days. In this case the "cap" represents the distance between the two points. The speed at which you package gets between the two points is the cause of the price difference. You can't do a straight "price per gigabyte" comparison of the monthly cap between two different speed tiers, the higher speed tier will always look more expensive because the extra money is being paid so that you get your data faster. I understand that, but the billing is no longer about speed anymore, it's about billing per byte, and since you're both allotted the same "free amount" before you reach your cap, then the person on the lower plan is paying less for 250GB's than the person on the higher plan, yes I understand that 6 cents per GB is going towards paying for the speed the higher plan user is using, however it still doesn't make sense from a per GB usage point of view. Start paying for the higher 100Mbps plans that cost $100 + a month, with a 250GB cap and you're now paying 40 cents per GB for your 250GB cap, which the lowest speed plan is paying 14 cents per GB.
That's the problem with usage based tiers when you mix it with speed. If they are going to do that then the faster speeds need higher data caps, otherwise people are paying more per GB to get the same usage as someone who is paying way less, assuming both parties are not exceeding the cap and paying for overages. I think speed shouldn't really be marketed anymore if they are doing caps/overages, instead each "speed tier" should be marketed with a data cap accordingly... So for instance (example, not reality) 3Mbps = 250GB cap, 10Mbps = 350GB cap, 20Mbps = 500GB cap, 50Mbps = 750GB cap, and 100Mbps = 1TB cap (you could also erase the 3Mbps tier, and make the 100Mbps tier 750GB, this is just an example for providers who still offer 3Mbps)
If someone goes out and buys 1TB worth of data and only uses 250GB a month, so be it, their fault for not managing their money better, or researching the usage vs their actual needs, however this would be FAIR and not having people with 100Mbps connections subsidizing cost for people with 3Mbps connections and getting the exact same usage allotment before overages kick in as their counter part on 3Mbps. And it's even possible that the person on the 3Mbps tier may use their allotment within 3 weeks (don't know if that's possible, didn't do the math, again, just an example) and be one of the "heavy users" that the 100Mbps person is not... This is why marketing usage allotments vs speed for a capped service would be better. Everyone would get 100Mbps, and then people can pick a data tier based on their usage, and actually be saving money for real based on usage.
Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein | |
bemis
join:2008-07-18
Reading, MA Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by mmay149q:I understand that, but the billing is no longer about speed anymore, it's about billing per byte Respectfully, I disagree.
Billing is still about speed.
It just also has a new component which includes overage charges based on total usage.
said by mmay149q:since you're both allotted the same "free amount" before you reach your cap, then the person on the lower plan is paying less for 250GB's than the person on the higher plan, yes I understand that 6 cents per GB is going towards paying for the speed the higher plan user is using, however it still doesn't make sense from a per GB usage point of view. I see what you're talking about, it's just that I don't think we're being billed per byte--we're being told what our ISP feels is a reasonable total number of bytes for a month, and if we go over that, we pay extra.
said by mmay149q:That's the problem with usage based tiers when you mix it with speed. If they are going to do that then the faster speeds need higher data caps They don't need to do anything 
said by mmay149q:I think speed shouldn't really be marketed anymore if they are doing caps/overages, instead each "speed tier" should be marketed with a data cap accordingly... That's your version of fair--you believe if you have a faster connection, you ought to have more total bytes. I can understand that, and yeah, I wouldn't mind if it were how the ISP's see it too, but I disagree that they two MUST go hand in hand.
Home internet connections are sold based on speed. If you are using it to browse the web and watch streaming media, than you are most likely wasting your money to go for faster tiers. If you are transferring content then you are paying the extra money to make that happen faster.
The total amount of data sent is irrelevant to pricing based on speed, which is what we still have. The fact that it gets more expensive "per byte" for faster speeds is also irrelevant, there is no law that says that as you buy more you must pay less per unit, this isn't Costco. | |
mmay149qPremium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48 | said by bemis:said by mmay149q:I understand that, but the billing is no longer about speed anymore, it's about billing per byte Respectfully, I disagree. Billing is still about speed. It just also has a new component which includes overage charges based on total usage. said by mmay149q:since you're both allotted the same "free amount" before you reach your cap, then the person on the lower plan is paying less for 250GB's than the person on the higher plan, yes I understand that 6 cents per GB is going towards paying for the speed the higher plan user is using, however it still doesn't make sense from a per GB usage point of view. I see what you're talking about, it's just that I don't think we're being billed per byte--we're being told what our ISP feels is a reasonable total number of bytes for a month, and if we go over that, we pay extra. said by mmay149q:That's the problem with usage based tiers when you mix it with speed. If they are going to do that then the faster speeds need higher data caps They don't need to do anything said by mmay149q:I think speed shouldn't really be marketed anymore if they are doing caps/overages, instead each "speed tier" should be marketed with a data cap accordingly... That's your version of fair--you believe if you have a faster connection, you ought to have more total bytes. I can understand that, and yeah, I wouldn't mind if it were how the ISP's see it too, but I disagree that they two MUST go hand in hand. Home internet connections are sold based on speed. If you are using it to browse the web and watch streaming media, than you are most likely wasting your money to go for faster tiers. If you are transferring content then you are paying the extra money to make that happen faster. The total amount of data sent is irrelevant to pricing based on speed, which is what we still have. The fact that it gets more expensive "per byte" for faster speeds is also irrelevant, there is no law that says that as you buy more you must pay less per unit, this isn't Costco. Yes I understand it's not Costco, but speed still does not really matter, yes you can get it faster, however someone may buy a 100Mbps connection so that themselves and the other 2 - 4 people they live with can all stream, download, and etc without interruptions or a slow connection, if it's 5 people that's 20Mbps per person, not bad really. This will be the normal American family in 5 years or so, and with all those people using data it's hard to track who is using the most without something special in the router GUI, or the meter on the website literally scanning the router and showing usage based on each device connected to it (which who wants ISP's in your home seeing what you're doing and monitoring it on a per PC basis?)
So at this point you're then forced to install software on each individual PC device (built in on Android/iPhone devices so no need) to monitor usage for each user and see whose using the most and who isn't. And in a family of 5, especially if 3 of them are teenagers I'm pretty sure that 250GB cap will start looking really small really fast. Whereas if everyone had the same speed (and every 2 - 5 years they just upped the speed 100Mbps) but different data usage allotments, then people really would truly be saving based on usage. But the way it is now, it's spun as "use less pay less" but that's not true, because each person is paying a set amount per GB for 250GB's of data (or whatever the cap is the ISP is providing) that they may or may not fully use in one month, and the ISP's know this, and it's exactly WHY they want to implement this policy. Just keep sucking it up and telling yourself whatever makes you sleep at night, either way, you're still getting scammed while they are laughing on the way to the bank with huge bags of cash in hand.
»Metered Data Leads Industry to $19.3 Billion in 2Q Revenues
Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein | |
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | reply to mmay149q
The fair way to do it is have you pick a speed tier and a usage tier. Then the 3Mbs would not be subsidizing the expense for the faster speed or the heavy users if they are not a heavy user. Now when they do upgrades the lower tiers bill increase even when though they may not be creating more demands on the system.
The current setup worked in the past because your equipment and the content provider did not have equipment that would handle the speeds and usage you can today.
They could go to a system like the power company bill by the bit or byte. | |
mmay149qPremium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48 | said by WhatNow:The fair way to do it is have you pick a speed tier and a usage tier. Then the 3Mbs would not be subsidizing the expense for the faster speed or the heavy users if they are not a heavy user. Now when they do upgrades the lower tiers bill increase even when though they may not be creating more demands on the system.
The current setup worked in the past because your equipment and the content provider did not have equipment that would handle the speeds and usage you can today.
They could go to a system like the power company bill by the bit or byte.
I would go for that, or an online system that allows you to swap out your usage tiers for a month or day, or etc so it doesn't count against your cap, all online, that would be more simplified and give choice, because I would bet my life that the whole goal of caps and overages is just to have certain groups paying more for data than others, and the average, and it's a joke in the investor/CEO/higher manager community because people actually fell for it....
Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein | |
mmay149qPremium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48 | reply to bemis
You can say over and over again that this move is not about consumption, but if that's the case then why even have a cap and overages? I mean $10 per 50GB is nothing to a person making $250,000 + a year, they can easily afford to pay that. That's the problem with consumption based models, they pick and choose who gets to use the internet, when, and how much of it's resources they can enjoy, and pick and choose who is going to pay the most for a resource that never disappears, or even exists physically for that matter, I'll have to hand it to whoever came up with the idea of "affordable gigabytes" and sold it good enough for everyone to accept it, because that person is a MASTER scammer, over half the people who buy these plans don't even realize how much they are getting shafted...
Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein | |
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to WhatNow
said by WhatNow:The fair way to do it is have you pick a speed tier and a usage tier.
I like that idea. But will the ISPs like it? They get to price the service the way THEY want.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care | |
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to mmay149q
said by mmay149q:That's the problem with usage based tiers when you mix it with speed. If they are going to do that then the faster speeds need higher data caps, otherwise people are paying more per GB to get the same usage as someone who is paying way less, assuming both parties are not exceeding the cap and paying for overages. I think speed shouldn't really be marketed anymore if they are doing caps/overages, instead each "speed tier" should be marketed with a data cap accordingly... So for instance (example, not reality) 3Mbps = 250GB cap, 10Mbps = 350GB cap, 20Mbps = 500GB cap, 50Mbps = 750GB cap, and 100Mbps = 1TB cap (you could also erase the 3Mbps tier, and make the 100Mbps tier 750GB, this is just an example for providers who still offer 3Mbps)
Matt
In my opinion if they want to have a cap which when exceeded triggers extra fees, it should be based totally on full bore download time. IOW: If I get a 250GB cap at 3Mbs, a 12Mbs tier (4 times the provisioned speed) should have a 1TB cap (4 times the cap) so both give you the same full bore download time (IOW: With both caps, I can download for the same amount of time before getting hit with an overage). The faster a tier I buy, the more usage I should be permitted. The current system gives me less accessibility since the caps are too low in comparison to the speeds I am getting and thus I run into the cap sooner based on usage time. | |
mmay149qPremium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48
1 edit | said by RARPSL:said by mmay149q:That's the problem with usage based tiers when you mix it with speed. If they are going to do that then the faster speeds need higher data caps, otherwise people are paying more per GB to get the same usage as someone who is paying way less, assuming both parties are not exceeding the cap and paying for overages. I think speed shouldn't really be marketed anymore if they are doing caps/overages, instead each "speed tier" should be marketed with a data cap accordingly... So for instance (example, not reality) 3Mbps = 250GB cap, 10Mbps = 350GB cap, 20Mbps = 500GB cap, 50Mbps = 750GB cap, and 100Mbps = 1TB cap (you could also erase the 3Mbps tier, and make the 100Mbps tier 750GB, this is just an example for providers who still offer 3Mbps)
Matt
In my opinion if they want to have a cap which when exceeded triggers extra fees, it should be based totally on full bore download time. IOW: If I get a 250GB cap at 3Mbs, a 12Mbs tier (4 times the provisioned speed) should have a 1TB cap (4 times the cap) so both give you the same full bore download time (IOW: With both caps, I can download for the same amount of time before getting hit with an overage). The faster a tier I buy, the more usage I should be permitted. The current system gives me less accessibility since the caps are too low in comparison to the speeds I am getting and thus I run into the cap sooner based on usage time. Yeah that's why I say just give everyone the same speed starting with 100Mbps (since anything faster for the most part isn't probable within the next few years for actual use, and as long as upload is 5 - 10Mbps that's not horrible) and sell them data tiers. It's essentially what they've done already, only they are trying to lure people in with speed, and not advertise the cap + overages. Think I'm lying? Here's a screenshot of me trying to sign up for U-verse now... Went all the way to where I am supposed to put in a credit card and NO MENTION of the 250GB whatsoever, if it was hidden, I couldn't find it... What total garbage, I wonder how many people sign up not realizing that they have this limitation??
Edit: The other reason I'm so opposed to caps is because I'm fearful of where the hacking community may go with it, just imagine a virus where once downloaded it automatically runs a speed test, gets your max connection speed over a period of 5 - 20 minutes (and does this when it detects your computer not being used) and dedicates 5Mbps of your 20Mbps tier to strictly downloading constantly while your computer is on. In theory that's 1.3TB a month worth of data assuming you never turn your PC or internet connection off... Oh, and this virus monitors your login attempts of any website it recognizes as a email provider, as well as Outlook or any other mail client, and automatically deletes ANYTHING from your provider... Imagine that bill when you get it if you don't watch your usage?
Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein | | |
|
|
