Web Usage-Based Billing On Its Way

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Wait a second, I thought the cable companies were saying that so-called "data hogs" were the minority and they are the ones ruining it for everyone. Well, if that is the case, wouldn't it be a stupid idea to move to usage based billing? See what I am saying?

"As more video shifts to the Web, the cable operators will inevitably align their pricing models," Moffett said. "With the right usage-based pricing plan, they can embrace the transition instead of resisting it." 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.
Click to expand...
 
Oh that's fucking brilliant make yourselves even more expensive.
 
Remember when the cable companies were putting the 250GB caps in place, they were saying that the 1% of the data hogs were using all the bandwidth while everyone else never comes lose to using 250GB.

Right?

Well, if they move to usage based billing that means the majority will pay less while the 1% of the data hogs will pay more. That's a shit business model.

So either

A.) they were lying then.
B.) they are lying now

C.) all of the above.
 
Sounds they they are turning into a cellphone company. They will probably break it up into GB usage and the speed you want, and if you want high in both categories, expect to pay out the ass.
 
I love how as the years pass my internet connection gets more expensive and more restrictive. That's how technology works, right? I'll just switch providers... oh wait, I only have two choices and they both have roughly the same cost/data cap. Way to go America.
 
the last couple 10gig peers I turned up at ~$2/mb 2gig commit. 4 years ago we would be lucky to see $9-$10/mb.. and Comcast and Verizon have way better buying power than I do.
 
Steve said:
Remember when the cable companies were putting the 250GB caps in place, they were saying that the 1% of the data hogs were using all the bandwidth while everyone else never comes lose to using 250GB.

Right?

Well, if they move to usage based billing that means the majority will pay less while the 1% of the data hogs will pay more. That's a shit business model.

So either

A.) they were lying then.
B.) they are lying now

C.) all of the above.
Click to expand...

With AT&T my cap is something like 150 GB before I'm charged extra...I hit it every month. It's not really a lot of data. Steam and Netflix will hit that without a problem.
 
Steve said:
Remember when the cable companies were putting the 250GB caps in place, they were saying that the 1% of the data hogs were using all the bandwidth while everyone else never comes lose to using 250GB.

Right?

Well, if they move to usage based billing that means the majority will pay less while the 1% of the data hogs will pay more. That's a shit business model.

So either

A.) they were lying then.
B.) they are lying now

C.) all of the above.
Click to expand...

The answer is: C

They were specifically targeting p2p file-sharers that were averaging 500gig+ transfer/mo. Now they have to feed Netflix/AmazonVod/iTunes/etc to subscribers at 2+ hours a night of video for a single stream and likely more on weekends. Most houses have more than one TV, why wouldn't they stream to more than one device at a time.
 
Well this certainly is one way for them to fight back again any sort of net neutrality, because of course their content isn't going to count toward your data usage totals, or fuck if I know, maybe it will.

Every since I left the stranglehold of AT&T to a 3rd party provider (still leases from AT&T mind you) I've never been fucking happier. AT&T wanted to charge a different rate structure based upon how fast you paid for (even though it didn't cost them any more... remember 99% don't use that much bandwidth so speed should not matter), now my new place just says "Our technology has the capability to reach 20Mbps, but based upon your distance you'll probably get this... " fuck it I'm happy max speed possible for one price? Sign me up (and I did)
 
Steve said:
Remember when the cable companies were putting the 250GB caps in place, they were saying that the 1% of the data hogs were using all the bandwidth while everyone else never comes lose to using 250GB.

Right?

Well, if they move to usage based billing that means the majority will pay less while the 1% of the data hogs will pay more. That's a shit business model.

So either

A.) they were lying then.
B.) they are lying now

C.) all of the above.
Click to expand...

It's shitty on two levels. For the consumers it would not be good, nor for the company selling the service. They would have a large amount of profits tied up in a small number of subscribers, not a sustainable situation......unless, they suddenly put low caps on the normal users, charging for overages, and then made the high users pay even more...

Right now is a terrible time to try to force price hikes down consumers throats. Look at the reaction from an $8 Netflix increase and a $5 BoA debit card charge.......now imagine if the cable industry came out and said, everyone's broadband is going up $10/mo and we are cutting the cap in half as well......

I don't see this happening.
 
I pay $65 a month with a (newly enforced) 250GB cap on Cox. That's $0.26/GB. Based on these numbers the only way I don't consider metered usage digital-rape is if: A. You only use 10GB a month and only pay $2.60 for your service; B. You only use 10GB of your 'cap' and you get 240GB "roll-over" for later.
 
Well if this happens then I guess I will be buying less games on Steam, Origin or any other D/L service. Fucking cable companies :mad:.
 
We just "defeated" that here in Canada, as far as wireline internet goes. Though, we still have some increase access rates to contend with. Remember, you voices are important. Always sign any petition and send letters to your congressional representatives and I am guessing to the FCC. Make your voices heard!
 
These are the same companies that have record profits every year. Well not all but most of them. So really what they are sore about is the fact that no one wants their crappy cable TV service anymore.

If the top 1% of users are using 80% of bandwidth figure out a way to punish them and not me and the rest of us using Netflix and other DD services for out content. This is a step back, I mean I remember having Compuserve and what not in the 90's and getting limited time on the internet. Hopefully, if these companies do this someone will step in and compete with them.
 
I am so tired of this crap. Comcast just added a $10/mo fee for "whole house HD access" because I have 2 cable cards...both are in my 1 dvr and I only own 1 tv.

They will try anyway to squeeze every little dime out of us as more and more gets connected.
 
You know, I read things like this, and I get all doom and gloom thinking 'noes, my internets is attacked'. I then remind myself that if they do introduce pricing structures like this, and if customers start to notice due to high netflix/hulu usuage increases then ISP's like Verizon FIOS, as no doubt they won't adopt that kind of pricing structure, will have a significant opportunity to further develop their FIOS network and no only be able to undercut Warner and whoever else adopts this ill-gotten idea in price, but be able to no doubt increase their pricing from what it currently is while doing so.

I think this plan will eventually backfire as ISPs that are investing heavily in fiber, like Verizon, continue to grow that anyone who use's this kind of pricing structure will lose due to no longer being competitive. I mean, what gamer wouldn't switch to an ISP that runs fiber to their house? What household wouldn't drop a limited 14/3 Mbps plan for a 25/25 Mbps unlimited plan that cost's less. I mean, there are already instances of new ISPs offering fiber, at significantly higher bandwidth tiers, for less than competitors in order to get people to switch to them. Will be the same thing with the cable companies who try to augment their inability to offer consumers what they want by gouging them with data plans like this.
 
Meh, whatever. Ill just get the cheapy plan cancel netflix and pandora and go back to ebaying used DVD's and CD's. I really dont care to fight for media that is shoved down my throat from dusk till dawn.
 
Thatll be about teh time I put a WiFi dish on my house and rip free internet from neighbors a mile away..
 
Let's gouge the consumer even more, because they don't keep doing exactly the same things in perpetuity!
 
Heh I just find it funny. One of my friends here has rogers cable internet instead of DSL and every time I go to his house I call him stupid over it and he agree but he is too last to change it. I honestly wouldnt insult him but he bitches he has a 50gb cap and he goes over it every month and pays twice what I do for DSL so he deserves it.
 
Genny said:
With AT&T my cap is something like 150 GB before I'm charged extra...I hit it every month. It's not really a lot of data. Steam and Netflix will hit that without a problem.
Click to expand...

Guess I'm screwed.... My highest monthly usage was over 100TB, which my cable company promptly called me on... to offer me 50Mb/s instead of my dual 20's..... wonder what that will cost me.
 
My god, id be screwed with a 250gb cap.....

November 2011 (Incoming: 78933 MB / Outgoing: 266638 MB)
 
I just don't get it. I really need someone to explain this to me. All these internet service providers, mobile and landline are throwing away unlimited data plans for tiered data plans. And yet more stuff is moving to the cloud, and digital distribution is supposed to replace all physical media, whether discs, books, games, etc.

These ISPs keep whining about increased data consumption and yet it keeps growing and growing. If resources truly are scare and these companies can't afford to offer unlimited data anymore, then why the hell are services like Steam and NetFlix popping up, more of them everyday and only getting bigger and bigger and having more things to download and stream!?

Is it that these companies can't afford unlimited data, or that they are just greedy ****s that want to nickel and dime us as we get more and more hooked to what they are offering us?
 
Moffett is a fucking retard. Always has been, always will be.
 
What they need is a fast wireless alternative so there'd be more options in most areas thus driving the competitive aspect of the marketplace ... Oh wait, yeah, about that, we can lobby to overblow a gps issue to hinder it.

Corporations are destroying this company.
 
The real question is since more and more online streaming services have ad videos when starting or playing a movie, we would be pretty much paying the people who streaming the fucking ads, then the host will get it's cut from the ad as well.

LOL RAPE US MORE 1%er's and take my wallet!

This country has gone to shit.
 
these guys crack me up. people like me that grew up without internet are the majority of people online, whether it being as an end user or as a parent monetarily supplying the household with the connection. in between the vicious viruses and malware, popups, ad banners, security codes that i can barely read, and constant maintenance to keep private information private, ive about had it.
then if you are a multi player online gamer its a nightmare. take codmw3 for instance. i have 25mbs down and 12mbs up and because of p2p gaming i am forced to play with some third world clown on third world internet, constantly forcing the game to switch from host to host.
the internet sucks now......oh yeah, cloud computing......lol......i think a bunch of women run the internet.
 
They put caps on bandwidth as if bandwidth were something you had in a reservoir.

Bandwidth is consumed as it is created, just like electricity. If the electric company said "you may only use 1,000 KWh per month, what would be the point? You still have peak and off-peak hours of usage.

AT&T and Verizon pull in about $3,000,000,000 per quarter each. Comcast pulls in about $1,000,000,000 per quarter. Think they might possibly be interested in spending a little bit of that net profit on infrastructure? Fuck no. Just give your subscribers worse service and continue overselling the bandwidth you've got.
 
>GSXR<mrbusa said:
these guys crack me up. people like me that grew up without internet are the majority of people online, whether it being as an end user or as a parent monetarily supplying the household with the connection. in between the vicious viruses and malware, popups, ad banners, security codes that i can barely read, and constant maintenance to keep private information private, ive about had it.
then if you are a multi player online gamer its a nightmare. take codmw3 for instance. i have 25mbs down and 12mbs up and because of p2p gaming i am forced to play with some third world clown on third world internet, constantly forcing the game to switch from host to host.
the internet sucks now......oh yeah, cloud computing......lol......i think a bunch of women run the internet.
Click to expand...

That 3rd world clown has better internet than you, I hate to say it :) Starting to think that the only thing that the USA beats the rest of the world at is GREED!
 
"As more video shifts to the Web, the cable operators will inevitably align their pricing models,"
Click to expand...
Not their infrastructure. Their pricing models.

Infrastructure costs money. Your customers don't have any real competition to turn to. Here's an idea: charge them more while giving them less. Why not? They can't do shit about it.

We need to start threatening them with municipal broadband. The telecoms fear it and attack it because it would force them to actually start competing in a free market.
 
fattypants said:
Not their infrastructure. Their pricing models.

Infrastructure costs money. Your customers don't have any real competition to turn to. Here's an idea: charge them more while giving them less. Why not? They can't do shit about it.

We need to start threatening them with municipal broadband. The telecoms fear it and attack it because it would force them to actually start competing in a free market.
Click to expand...

Rofl, I think if they ever felt threatened that'd just say, Hey Gov, we are too big to fail, how about you hook us up with free tax payers money? Otherwise dinosaurs will walk the earth, plants will eat people, and the West Coast will be without internet for a week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top