Goodbye to a flat rate for broadband?

Salu · 09-10-2003, 10:08

Last month the BBC produced the following article which basically forecasts the demise of set-price broadband predominantly due to the large increase of peer-to-peer traffic. It likens the experience to going out for a meal and only having a small amount to eat in a group that pigs out. They then suggest that you split the bill equally which maddens you.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3109146.stm

The thought of paying per download for broadband horrifies me and I would object vehemently.

I know this issue has been discussed before but I wondered what you thought specifically about the following suggestion?

Broadband should be given for a set fee for unlimited usage. However if you want to use peer-to -peer then you are free to do so but you pay per megabyte. You could do this by monitoring a TCPIP port. Maybe this would stifle Peer-to-peer and the traffic would switch back to FTP? Maybe not....

Any thoughts?

downquark1 · 09-10-2003, 10:15

Quote:

Broadband should be given for a set fee for unlimited usage. However if you want to use peer-to -peer then you are free to do so but you pay per megabyte. You could do this by monitoring a TCPIP port. Maybe this would stifle Peer-to-peer and the traffic would switch back to FTP? Maybe not....

I thought ISP's tried to block p2p ports, but then they adapted by using a variable port system.

What have we done to deserve this

?

Why does every new NTL policy seem more like a punishment to their customers for not dying and continuing the payments?

Stuart · 09-10-2003, 10:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

I thought ISP's tried to block p2p ports, but then they adapted by using a variable port system.

P2P programs do use variable ports. They have done ever since Napster was launched. It just means p2p programs can be a bugger to block at the firewall (we tried where I work). The only way to totally block them and still allow web access is to block every port apart from 21, 80 and whatever ports email uses. Mind you, even active FTP gets screwed up if you do this (although passive FTP works).

The sad thing is, because of a rise in P2P usage, I think that flat rate broadband will be history, and the easiest thing for the companies to charge for would be data per Megabyte (or Gigabyte).

MovedGoalPosts · 09-10-2003, 11:23

I'm not sure realistically that a company would just be able to charge based on P2P stuff, unless it is able to develop monitoring software that identified the contents of packets sent / received. As that would undoubtedly affect your privacy, ntl and others would have to make major changes to their T&Cs and AUP. As that would be a major change in contract they would have to notify us properly. Even ntl wouldnt want the outcry that would surely follow, the cap stuff was bad enough.

There might be a role for a very low user metered package, i.e. you pay a low fixed charge for your BB being always on for your email and limited browsing but if you exceed say a very low threshold of 1GB a month then the rest is paid for additional bandwidth. This would only appeal to low users perhaps on the 150k services.

Faster speed users, have the increased speed and bandwidth because they want to use it. I for one dont want to go back to the bad old days of being frightened to use my connection for fear of the bill next month. It is for the ISPs to establish the flat rate charge to meet their general costs. Market forces help to establish this price. There will always be higher and lower than average users, but until you are significantly lower than average use a metered option is not going to be what a customer wants or needs. Flat rate pricing works in so many walks of life. I fail to see why it is not approprate for Broadband.

I seem to recall seeing an ntl quote - possibly on that awfull Buy NTL channel - that "our customers like flat rate pricing" or words to that effect. Would this be another ntl change in the future for perceived short term financial gain?

We do need to be on our guard to ensure that flat rate pricing remains available and ISPs dont go down the metered route. That would stop the BB revolution in it's tracks.

To my mind moving to a metered rate is a cap by another name. I'm sure that anticap would get involved if this was anything more than a pipe dream.

Salu · 09-10-2003, 13:23

There is something inherently psychological that inhibits your online experience if you feel that the meter is running. It will be terrible if we go down that road again. I can appreciate the buisness model but not from a consumer angle.

Maybe a pay per MB over and above a predetermined cap is an acceptable compromise....

MovedGoalPosts · 09-10-2003, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salu

There is something inherently psychological that inhibits your online experience if you feel that the meter is running. It will be terrible if we go down that road again. I can appreciate the buisness model but not from a consumer angle.

Maybe a pay per MB over and above a predetermined cap is an acceptable compromise....

Without turning this into another capping thread:

1) How do you determine what is an acceptable threshold for a such a limit? Is it set proportionate to the speed of connection, higher threshold for higher speed, or just arbitrary as the present cap policy?

2) With broadband content improving all the time, would a threshold take account of improved content and increasing downloads. After all we see elesewhere on this forum talk of ntl broadband plus which will result in increased downloading.

3) Many pundits say that the cost of moving data is reducing year on year (as companies reinvest and upgrade hardware and infrastructure (Oh I forgot ntl dont do that do they), so any price per data downloaded should also reduce. The effects of that reduction in cost should already show themselves to ntl as better margins as the bb service flat rate price has been fixed (600k) or even gone up (150k) over the last few years?

4) How do you allow users to know that they are going to go over the threshold (ntl have yet to provide any means of so doing despite the cap already in the AUP - even if they now choose not to enforce that)

5) Surely also a MB of data is too small a unit for any metering?

No compromise from me - flat rate uncapped broadband please.

Salu · 09-10-2003, 13:51

Good questions and ones only that NTL can answer if they decided to alter their T&C...but my preferred option would be the same as your conclusion.... Flat rate uncapped broadband. The BBC article was inferring that things would have to change soon.
Maybe the onus should be on the user to show that they had not downloaded peer-to-peer stuff to excess. Although how you would do this would be an interesting question...

downquark1 · 09-10-2003, 13:53

Can we start a public outcry now to save time?

MovedGoalPosts · 09-10-2003, 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Can we start a public outcry now to save time?

I suggest that anticap is well placed for this after all it's remit is quite simply to allow unlimited broadband. Certainly to go away from a flat rate tarrif is no longer unlimited use in the sense we have all come to expect.

Anticap does however only have very limited resources. To establish a vociferous voice, increased support would be needed, not only of words of encouragement, but ppl who are prepared to get off their backsides and stand up to be counted.

I recall the shock on many of the attendees at the ISPAs (Internet Service Providers Association - effectively the ISPs trade organisation awards where they all gave each other pats on the back for being so clever) earlier this year after the ntl cap had just come out. They couldn't believe that even only 4 of us had taken time to make a stand. That and numerous comment throughout the internet I'm sure had a major impact on ntl not having pursued the cap policy.

To achieve a similar impact would take commitment, but it's worth doing because I'm sure ntl will be looking at the metering option, when technology allows.

ian@huth · 09-10-2003, 15:24

One possible way to keep unlimited access is to have a flat rate system that is tiered by both download bandwidth and upload bandwidth. For instance the 600k service could have sub tiers of 32k 64k 128k and 256k uploads. The lower the upload speed chosen, the cheaper the service is. In general a home user would tend to want a high download speed for streaming video and downloading of legal software but does not need the higher upload speeds. The file sharers would then have to either choose a low upload speed which means less overall strain on the network or to pay extra for a higher upload speed.

MovedGoalPosts · 09-10-2003, 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianathuth

One possible way to keep unlimited access is to have a flat rate system that is tiered by both download bandwidth and upload bandwidth. For instance the 600k service could have sub tiers of 32k 64k 128k and 256k uploads. The lower the upload speed chosen, the cheaper the service is. In general a home user would tend to want a high download speed for streaming video and downloading of legal software but does not need the higher upload speeds. The file sharers would then have to either choose a low upload speed which means less overall strain on the network or to pay extra for a higher upload speed.

Yes but the gamers keep saying they need fast uploads as well. Or are they confusing latency / ping with bandwidth needs?

Alan Waddington · 09-10-2003, 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

Yes but the gamers keep saying they need fast uploads as well. Or are they confusing latency / ping with bandwidth needs?

I've been wondering about that too. Quite a number of people have subscribed to 1Mbps using the argument that to do otherwise would put them at a gaming disadvantage. However the throttling mechanism appears to allow bursts above the limit, provided the overall rate is low, so I'm not convinced that buying 1Mbps has any affect on latency.

:ducks - waiting for deluge of posts saying why there is an effect:

Back on topic: I think the biggest risk of metered access for an always on connection is inadvertantly running up a big bill. There have been a number of such cases down under, where expensive metered broadband is common. Folks install p2p and don't realise that acting as a server will cost them loads.

Stuart · 09-10-2003, 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

Yes but the gamers keep saying they need fast uploads as well. Or are they confusing latency / ping with bandwidth needs?

Maybe, I was under the impression that most games send individual packets, not large chunks of data. Maybe they are running servers...

Steve H · 09-10-2003, 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salu

There is something inherently psychological that inhibits your online experience if you feel that the meter is running. It will be terrible if we go down that road again. I can appreciate the buisness model but not from a consumer angle.

Maybe a pay per MB over and above a predetermined cap is an acceptable compromise....

To right - Thats half the reason people change from dial up to BB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

Yes but the gamers keep saying they need fast uploads as well. Or are they confusing latency / ping with bandwidth needs?

A fast upload is essential for gamers.. More so with the newer games coming out at the moment. Its the rate the connected clients can get in contact with your computer..

ian@huth · 09-10-2003, 20:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve_NTL

A fast upload is essential for gamers.. More so with the newer games coming out at the moment. Its the rate the connected clients can get in contact with your computer..

I am not a gamer but cannot see the logic in that statement. I would have thought that there would be no difference in gaming between a 600k and a 1Mb connection unless you was hosting a game.