Tiered Internet

[compfreak847]

Basically, this is just something I wanted to get OTs opinion on (and possibly get into a few debates, but I don't have many strong opinions on this subject so I probably won't :P ):

 

What do you think of internet charges based (at least somewhat) upon usage?

 

 

 

Let me give two examples, both of real-life people I know:

 

 

 

#1 is The Grandma.

 

#2 is The Big Household

 

 

 

#1 is an elderly woman, who uses the internet for nothing more then logging onto her gmail once a week and responding to 1-2 messages. Occasionally the kids come over and check the weather on her computer. Her monthly internet usage rarely exceeds 10 MB, and frequently remains below 1-2 MB. However, she has plenty of money, and she doesn't like waiting or having to tie up the phone line, so she pays $50 a month to get a reasonably fast cable connection from a major provider in her area.

 

 

 

#2 is a large household. There 4 children of various ages, 3 of whom are teenagers, and two adults. They all are very into torrenting and video\TV show download (Some legal, some not). They frequently watch a move every day or two apiece, and pull as much as 1 TB a month in data, thanks in no small amount to a strong belief in generous seeding - they frequently leave BT running all night, seeding at full speed. Now, they are a family of modest means, but they want a connection fast enough to get the videos they want without to much wait. So they also pay $50 a month for a good plan that gives them a fast connection from a major ISP.

 

 

 

Now, here's a summary of the usaage for one particularly varied month:

 

#1: 1,000,000 bytes of data

 

#2: 1,000,000,000,000 bytes of data

 

 

 

Yes, #2 is pulling 1,000,000 times the data, at 1,000,000 times the infrastructure cost to the ISP. What do they both pay? $50 per month. These are both examples of people that live in my area. Now my question is, do you think that is right? If you were paying for, say, water utilities at a flat monthly rate and you were charged the same amount as a neighbor who used one million times as much water, would you consider it fair? I feel there should be some sort of system in place to allow for this, but I'd like to get opinions on this from OT.

 

 

 

Here's a post I found interesting on slashdot discussing how this is similar and not similar to utilities (in this case water)

 

 

 

"Even where there is potentially plenty of water, drinkable water is NOT an unlimited resource. And it's not 'there' if you don't use it. Water evaporates and leaks. But the reality is that water, like bandwidth, is a finite resource. It costs to find water, transport and store it, make it drinkable, and then dispose of it. If you use more, it gets scarcer.

 

 

 

Bandwidth is also finite. It costs money to provision for it, actually maintain it, solve problems.

 

 

 

Some of you may remember when you were responsible for the Internet link at work - when the DDS2 circuit didn't cut it any more, the ISDN line was maxed out (thank God!) and then the T-1 wasn't enough, and 4 T-1s bonded couldn't handle it. With every increase in bandwidth came more costs, for a new or more DSU/CSU, new router, firewall. You used an external mail server to filter the spam, saving 90% of your POP/SMTP traffic. You blocked WebShots, and your CEO drove you c-r-a-z-y with the constantly-updating cnnmoney.com Now it's Flash that eats bandwidth, and you want to block YouTube, Facebook, and Hulu to keep from cranking up another link just to satisfy non-business browsing.

 

 

 

I understand the cable cos dilemma - Only a few users can hammer bandwidth, and affect everyone. The cost is spread, but not enough."

[Distracted]

Well you do make a valid point there. So your suggestion is that ISP's should charge an internet connection in the same way they charge for example water and electricity? That does have some advantages, but it has disadvantages too, since some people could find themselves paying a lot of money for browsing the internet.

 

 

 

What a solution to that would be is for example a price cap, let's say 20-50$. The grandmother would end up paying around 20$ and the family would pay about 50$, since they are the two extremes. A family which uses less (let's say 10GB) would pay around 30$, and so on.

 

 

 

But an interesting point you made there, something I wouldn't have thought of myself actually.

[compfreak847]

That's a good idea. It simply couldn't be tiered based on usage alone. Let me give an example:

 

 

 

Currently the company is paid 100$ for 1,000,001,000,000 bytes of data usage. If we break it down, the family should pay >99.99999999$ and the grandma <.00000001$

[The Dark Lord]

Don't worry. The Cyber Security Act of 2009 will destroy the Internet long before this happens, if the act passes.

[obfuscator]

It's an interesting idea. However, if you look at it this way:

 

 

 

The grandma decided to pay far more than she needed to because she has the money. I would liken it to someone buying a 3rd car when they might not use it. It's their choice to purchase it regardless of the usage.

 

 

 

I know it's a bad analogy, but its an interesting idea.

 

 

 

As for the actual payment, I do believe that charges should be based on bandwidth usage.

[pureprayer]

I thought you were some idiot who meant Tired (of) internet.

 

 

 

Anyway, you could think of it as the grandmother is paying extra, and the large family is just getting their full value.

 

 

 

Even though Bandwidth is limited, we don't need it to survive :lol: :uhh:

[Distracted]

Don't worry. The Cyber Security Act of 2009 will destroy the Internet long before this happens, if the act passes.

 

 

 

Is that the one that states only very few sites are accessible and that sites will be accessed in the same way TiVo is: by buying website-packs? If not, please enlighten me.

[RichieMcD]

Please enlighten me more as well, is this an American act to be passed only, is it an Uk act, European union, the entire 1st world etc? Goddamit the thought of limited access is scary and against my rights!

[Bauke]

You get what you pay for. They offer you unlimited access, and it's up to you in what way you make use of it. Sure, they could be offering internet access based on the data you use, but the consumer does NOT want that. At least, you don't have to try this in Holland. We've had data limits on certain providers, and they all dissapeared.

 

 

 

The examples in the opening post are a bit awkward imo. #1 might just as well take a slower line, because checking email and such does not depend on speed, but more on latency.. since not a lot of data is used. Even the cheapest dsl line would be more than enough for what #1 uses (taken from Dutch providers). If #1 wants to pay too much for the dsl line, that's #1's mistake.

[Racheya]

To be honest despite being very internet savvy I don't have much of a clue about my own appart from the fact it goes off about 1 or 2 times a day. When we got it it was like Woooo 2mb speeds WOOOOW which at the time was apparently amazing. I don't know how much I use per month or anything, I expect it to be quite a bit since I'm on practically 8 hours a night and more than once I've downloaded torrents in my sleep. I'm just very clueless about how much we're paying and what for :?

 

 

 

Also what is this act!?! :? :shock: :shock:

[deathdrow]

To be honest despite being very internet savvy I don't have much of a clue about my own appart from the fact it goes off about 1 or 2 times a day. When we got it it was like Woooo 2mb speeds WOOOOW which at the time was apparently amazing. I don't know how much I use per month or anything, I expect it to be quite a bit since I'm on practically 8 hours a night and more than once I've downloaded torrents in my sleep. I'm just very clueless about how much we're paying and what for :?

 

 

 

Also what is this act!?! :? :shock: :shock:

 

pretty sure it's only being implemented in australia for now.

 

TO THE GOOGLEMOBILE!

 

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/cybersecurity-act

 

 

 

according to what I've read so far, they're also going to try to pass it in the U.S.

 

no clue about the uk.

[The Dark Lord]

Don't worry. The Cyber Security Act of 2009 will destroy the Internet long before this happens, if the act passes.

 

 

 

Is that the one that states only very few sites are accessible and that sites will be accessed in the same way TiVo is: by buying website-packs? If not, please enlighten me.

 

 

 

Please enlighten me more as well, is this an American act to be passed only, is it an Uk act, European union, the entire 1st world etc? Goddamit the thought of limited access is scary and against my rights!

 

 

 

It's an American act that the legislature is trying to pass that will grant the president authority to temporarily shut down most of the Internet in case of any perceived threat. It also allows the government to more easily spy on your personal electronic information, I believe.

 

 

 

Either way, it's a BS act and I hope it dies.

[Distracted]

Wow, having that bill go through, imagine not being able to post somehting here without having to worry about the FBI or whatever reading it. Jeez, it'll probably ring off an alarm somewhere whenever you say something terrorist-related lol.

 

 

 

î that's probably an exagguration, but still, this is a big dent in our privacy.

[compfreak847]

Some people seem to be missing my point. The cheapest Cable connection here in the USA is at least 40$; she's not paying $50 for her health, she's paying it because there's really not much else available. There's nothing in the way of a few-dollars-a-month plan for those who want to check email every now and then without the hassle and frustration of dial up - which STILL costs $20 a month and is rapidly disappearing.

[____]

To be honest despite being very internet savvy I don't have much of a clue about my own appart from the fact it goes off about 1 or 2 times a day. When we got it it was like Woooo 2mb speeds WOOOOW which at the time was apparently amazing. I don't know how much I use per month or anything, I expect it to be quite a bit since I'm on practically 8 hours a night and more than once I've downloaded torrents in my sleep. I'm just very clueless about how much we're paying and what for :?

 

 

 

Also what is this act!?! :? :shock: :shock:

 

pretty sure it's only being implemented in australia for now.

 

TO THE GOOGLEMOBILE!

 

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/cybersecurity-act

 

 

 

according to what I've read so far, they're also going to try to pass it in the U.S.

 

no clue about the uk.

 

 

 

There's been no solid progress in Australia. Multiple ISP's have dropped out of a 'national filter' program (leaving only Telstra as the final 'big 3' ISP in) stating that it wasn't viable, etc. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that the plan will be ditched.

[das]

Some people seem to be missing my point. The cheapest Cable connection here in the USA is at least 40$; she's not paying $50 for her health, she's paying it because there's really not much else available. There's nothing in the way of a few-dollars-a-month plan for those who want to check email every now and then without the hassle and frustration of dial up - which STILL costs $20 a month and is rapidly disappearing.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi, I work for an ISP

 

 

 

She could get high speed 768/128k DSL for 15.00-24.95 depending on her location; dont even need a phone line, you can get a dryloop/standalone dsl service.

 

 

 

I know some of our DSL customers use DSL strictly for large emails and never browse the web - is it fair to them? Sure, most customers who don't go onto web pages say they dont want too or "are too stupid too". Their fault , not ours.

[killerbeer0]

I say no... I eat a ton of bandwidth, that's why.

[compfreak847]

Some people seem to be missing my point. The cheapest Cable connection here in the USA is at least 40$; she's not paying $50 for her health, she's paying it because there's really not much else available. There's nothing in the way of a few-dollars-a-month plan for those who want to check email every now and then without the hassle and frustration of dial up - which STILL costs $20 a month and is rapidly disappearing.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi, I work for an ISP

 

 

 

She could get high speed 768/128k DSL for 15.00-24.95 depending on her location; dont even need a phone line, you can get a dryloop/standalone dsl service.

 

 

 

I know some of our DSL customers use DSL strictly for large emails and never browse the web - is it fair to them? Sure, most customers who don't go onto web pages say they dont want too or "are too stupid too". Their fault , not ours.

 

She lives in a poorly-serviced area. The best dial up she can get is 22 KB\s, and even that's very spotty and disconnects every couple of minutes. DSL is out of the question; the two major providers (Earthlink\SBC Yahoo!) don't service her area, and satellite is very expensive (80+ a month) with slow speeds and very high latency. Cable is really her only option, and there's simply very little in the cheaper range that doesn't bundle unwanted services in with it.

 

 

 

That being said, the problem is coming from the ISP itself. We're paying $50 a month for unlimited service. If one customer doesn't use it, the ISP says its their fault. But if one customer pulls a terabyte and costs then tens of thousands of times the infrastructure usage, they say it is the customer's fault, and they have to up the rates for everyone or begin tiering services.

 

 

 

 

I say no... I eat a ton of bandwidth, that's why.

 

Yeah, I assumed most responses would be biased because of that on an online forum. I pull around 20-30 GB per month from a low-volume server, the occasional movie from Hulu, and mild TV streaming from NBC. It's within reason, but probably over the average.

[Will H]

If it was an economically viable system, it would widely exist by now, I'm afraid. Unfortunately, any company that tried to do it would get loads of customers that would pay very little and use the internet very little, but no customers that would use it a lot and pay a lot because flat-rates would be more beneficial to them.

 

 

 

If you manage to work out a good way to do it, the market niche is all yours, but I'm afraid I don't think it would work.

[compfreak847]

If it was an economically viable system, it would widely exist by now, I'm afraid. Unfortunately, any company that tried to do it would get loads of customers that would pay very little and use the internet very little, but no customers that would use it a lot and pay a lot because flat-rates would be more beneficial to them.

 

 

 

If you manage to work out a good way to do it, the market niche is all yours, but I'm afraid I don't think it would work.

 

So what do the other companies do when the people who use a million times the bandwidth for the same price swarm them? Now they've lost all their income customers and are losing millions of dollars to the bandwidth hogs.

[Smapla]

If it was an economically viable system, it would widely exist by now, I'm afraid. Unfortunately, any company that tried to do it would get loads of customers that would pay very little and use the internet very little, but no customers that would use it a lot and pay a lot because flat-rates would be more beneficial to them.

 

 

 

If you manage to work out a good way to do it, the market niche is all yours, but I'm afraid I don't think it would work.

 

So what do the other companies do when the people who use a million times the bandwidth for the same price swarm them? Now they've lost all their income customers and are losing millions of dollars to the bandwidth hogs.

 

 

 

 

 

yesh, we need one big one to go first and then the rest will have to, or deal with greatly increased costs. then they'll come around...

 

 

 

god damn you timewarner

[Seraphi]

I would not wish to feel pressured to go extremely fast at whatever I am doing.

[xSxqPowerx]

Strongly disagree. It would most likely mean that for those who do use a lot of bandwidth - like myself - there would be a price raise.

[das]

 

She lives in a poorly-serviced area.

 

Poorly Serviced Area by her local phone company, Any DSL Services rents lines from the phone company, some states like South Carolina, clearly don't have ANY highspeed options even cable. Typically The Cable/Phone Companies are to blame for poor equipment, not your ISPs.

 

 

 

 

The best dial up she can get is 22 KB\s, and even that's very spotty and disconnects every couple of minutes.

 

Is this a real case or the fictional land of oz? I manage a call center with hundreds of thousands of customers in the South of the USA (NC,GA,AL,FL,SC,TN ETC) Where phone line quality is AWFUL, and id say Dial Up Averages 33.3k on the worst most middle of no where places.

 

 

 

Is grandma using an init string? new modem? new hardware? whats her OS?

 

 

 

 

DSL is out of the question; the two major providers (Earthlink\SBC Yahoo!) don't service her area, and satellite is very expensive (80+ a month) with slow speeds and very high latency. Cable is really her only option, and there's simply very little in the cheaper range that doesn't bundle unwanted services in with it.

 

 

Ok, and thats a problem with the area, it's more of a problem of infrastructure that should be laid at the phone companies afeet not your internet companies who purchase the right to use the lines from the companies to provide DSL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That being said, the problem is coming from the ISP itself. We're paying $50 a month for unlimited service. If one customer doesn't use it, the ISP says its their fault.

 

It is, if you dont drive your car and it rusts, is it their fault? If you dont watch TV, do you get a credit issued for the night you did not turn it on? People try this crap all of the time, I didnt use my internet today, can I have a .xx cent credit? I get about 2 of those calls a week escalated to me because they dont feel it's right to be charged for a service they have not used for the day while it worked.

 

 

 

 

But if one customer pulls a terabyte and costs then tens of thousands of times the infrastructure usage, they say it is the customer's fault, and they have to up the rates for everyone or begin tiering services.

 

 

 

It depends.

 

 

 

DSL allots the same amount of bandwidth per person, as a DSLAM can only take X amount of connections and each port is capped at the DSLAM for whatever set speed you pay for. That being said, DSL doesnt matter if you are on a DSLAM with 90 users downloading a TB daily or 100 old ladies checking email, because that DSLAM is set for a certain speed max and max connections and if it's maxed out by either, they have to add more in a nutshell. Your ISP pays for a set amount of bandwidth monthly, and it's factored into your monthly rates, On DSL you want to purchase enough bandwidth to cover your busiest times of the day. You have the same amount of bandwidth on sunday at 4 AM as friday during lunch rush. You lose money in the sleep hours, as all phone companies charge ISP's for a flat rate bandwidth during that time. So who cares what DSL customers download, it's paid for in your monthly fee.

 

 

 

Cable pools resources, so yes 10 users could use 10-40 percent of the bandwidth and yes that sucks, but capping it is a suicide move for the company, People who do use alot tend to be the customers you never hear from, keeping your tech support line costs down. And Mediacom tried this, most customers went to other services and that loses the company buisness that they dont want too lose. They probably still regret that.

[mister_moocky]

It's a nice thought, but the fact that it hasn't been done yet probably means that the number of new customers that would be attracted to X company isn't worth losing the profits made by charging a higher flat monthly fee. Or, consumers have made it clear that internet providers can "get away" with charging someone who uses 1 computer for a cable connection that can support 4 computers browsing without a notable loss of service, so changing it would simpy lose profit.