Cable Forum - View Single Post

Chrysalis · 09-11-2004, 23:46

On the argument of subsidising, its a way of life.

Road tax is better value for those who travel hundreds of miles a day and worst value for someone who uses their car rarely, but its life.

Most internet type services work the same way, datacentre's who sell servers and allow 1TB traffic per month would obviously be in a lot of trouble if all their customers were using that kind of traffic but most of their customers use under 200gig, with just a small % using the full allocation, another example.

Why should residental broadband be excluded from this type of marketing? Personally my average usage is approx 30gig/month, I have peaked at 46 gig and some months I have used as low as 8 gig, but I would expect my average usage to go up. In all forms of marketing to gain market share involves having less profitable customers, even some that make a loss, what hasn't been mentioned here and taken into account is what happens if this 5% customers stop reccomending ntl to people and instead bad mouth ntl, the effect is less total customers to ntl and less turnover, the rule of business is to keep all customers happy if possible. I am sure it wouldnt be too hard for ntl to accomodate people who use more traffic at a reasonable price point. The top tier is almost 50% more expensive then the middle tier and it allows 33% more traffic. Giving that high speeds is only truly useful for file transferring you would want the extra traffic to go with it and this is why I think out the 3 tiers the top one stands out by far as the worst value.

09-11-2004, 23:46	#663
Chrysalis Inactive Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 12,047	Re: [Now Official] More ntl speed changes On the argument of subsidising, its a way of life. Road tax is better value for those who travel hundreds of miles a day and worst value for someone who uses their car rarely, but its life. Most internet type services work the same way, datacentre's who sell servers and allow 1TB traffic per month would obviously be in a lot of trouble if all their customers were using that kind of traffic but most of their customers use under 200gig, with just a small % using the full allocation, another example. Why should residental broadband be excluded from this type of marketing? Personally my average usage is approx 30gig/month, I have peaked at 46 gig and some months I have used as low as 8 gig, but I would expect my average usage to go up. In all forms of marketing to gain market share involves having less profitable customers, even some that make a loss, what hasn't been mentioned here and taken into account is what happens if this 5% customers stop reccomending ntl to people and instead bad mouth ntl, the effect is less total customers to ntl and less turnover, the rule of business is to keep all customers happy if possible. I am sure it wouldnt be too hard for ntl to accomodate people who use more traffic at a reasonable price point. The top tier is almost 50% more expensive then the middle tier and it allows 33% more traffic. Giving that high speeds is only truly useful for file transferring you would want the extra traffic to go with it and this is why I think out the 3 tiers the top one stands out by far as the worst value.