Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b
Above all else though I firmly resent you suggesting I should pay more for my connection so someone else can download many times more than me. That sort of communist style nonsense has no place with something like bandwidth which is a metered product with certain fixed costs surrounding its' supply that use more should pay a higher proportion of. I will welcome usage tiers, however I can't help but feel that heavier users will not want to take the appropriate tier - I certainly wouldn't fancy paying £700 a month to download 10GB/day...
I would also suggest that no flat rate model is equipped to properly deal with the extremes of usage being seen here.
|
I think you misinterpreted me. I am not saying that anyone should need to pay more, because the business model of ntl and indeed any ISP should already be priced to reflect the average and extremes (both low and high) of usage that will occur. Clearly however the low user who feels they are being taken for a ride paying for use they dont want, has a choice in the current pricing to downgrade their service speed and thus cost, or accept it. I would prefer those occasional very low use ppl who still want the convenience of fast broadband to be able to pay say a fixed price that covers the cost of the physical connection, and then a charge based on use. It becomes a matter of choice for the customer as to when to move from the fixed cost plus use model to the all encompassing flat rate, just like ntl currently offer with their telephony.
Much of this comes down to the economics of metering. I suspect metering broadband is uneconomic if it were applied accross the spectrum. Hopefully ntl have better priorities for upgrading their network to cope withthe real demand.
What I am saying is that for the occassional low user, who downloads little but wants the convenience of the faster speed, they could find that, because of the flat rate model needing to account for the overall average levels, a low user tarrif that covers a the fixed costs of the the physical connection, and provides only a limited bandwidth, might be appropriate. For everyone else the exisitng flat rate price structure is clearly preferredFor those users alone a pay as you use it model might just be appropriate, but it is an area to be explored with caution.
What is most apparent, when you look at ntl's own expectations of what 1GB actually allows, is they are failing to take account of ever expanding data sizes, which follows ever law of bigger, better and faster computers. Ntl's own expectations of use are flawed, 10,000 pictures = 1GB, great they obvioulsy don't own modern digital cameras do they? Therefore last year, it might or might not be appropriate to say 1GB was a limit. This year the average limit must be higher, and next year it will be higher again.