Goodbye to a flat rate for broadband?

[erol]

Originally Posted by TheMole

60% (approx) of people on the road aren't using their cars illegally, though.

60% of traffic on most networks,

So you remove 60% of the 'alledged' illegal traffic.

Do you think that internet average usage will not continue to grow at an exponential rate, as it has done to date?

Do you really think that ISP/telcos/cablecos will not just load more users onto the infrastructure untill the congestion levels are exactly as they were before you removed the 60% ?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by erol

As far as I am concerned the Internet is a vital utility. It is essential to the future health of UK PLC. To price such a 'service of general ecconomic interest' on a what the market will bear basis and not a cost + basis, espcially when it is also a natural monoploy/duopoly would be nothing short of madness. Luckily the government and the EU seem to feel the same.

If the cost of provision was incremantal on usage then customer pricing on such a basis would be fair right an proper. If it is a fixed cost then the customer / user / citizen should have every expectation of being able to accrue the benefits of this (within the law).

Thats my view anyway

How do you equate the above to the pricing of telephone services which to me are an even more vital utility than the internet. I know that there are various talk schemes about but there is no catch all fixed price telephone service.

Originally Posted by erol

Fair to the paraplegic who uses the internet constantly for voice and video links?

My arthritic mother has had a motability car for the last 10 years. Perhaps we should be lobbying Government to make similar provision for those with a disability that increases their need for broadband internet services.

Fair to the low income earners?

Petrol tax is proportionately harsher on lower income earners but that has never stopped successive Governments from using it as a means of trying to control traffic levels. Nevertheless, free or very cheap web access is becoming more and more available through public libraries and the like.

Fair to those that are 'heavy users' and NOT engaged in illegal activity?

Frankly, yes. Heavy users on the same UBR as me make it more likely that when I want to use the net, it will perform poorly. I understand perfectly well that they will also feel the effects of this, but I'm not worried about that - they are the authors of their own misfortune. There is a cost associated with their network-jamming activities, even if that cost is only my time, your time and their time spent waiting. They need to have some visibility of that cost, even if their activities are legitimate. And I am unconvinced that the majority of heavy usage is legitimate in any case.

NTL's business plan was based on being able to load a certain number of people onto the network at a fixed rate per month. That network supports fewer users than expected because a relatively small number of people are using it more than anticipated. NTL therefore has less revenue and less cash for investment in the infrastructure. The only solution for this is either cap the heavy users, allowing more users to be loaded onto the network, increasing the number of monthly subscriptions and therefore the amount of cash available for investment, or make the heavy users pay more. I would prefer neither, but if pushed, the latter.

As far as I am concerned the Internet is a vital utility. It is essential to the future health of UK PLC. To price such a 'service of general ecconomic interest' on a what the market will bear basis and not a cost + basis, espcially when it is also a natural monoploy/duopoly would be nothing short of madness. Luckily the government and the EU seem to feel the same.

The online economy, as far as I am aware, generates a lot of cash from online sales. Visiting a web site to buy online requires very little bandwidth, so increasing charges for heavy users would not affect this. Could you post an example of how increasing the cost of heavy bandwidth usage among domestic users would adversely impact the economy?[/quote]

If the cost of provision was incremantal on usage then customer pricing on such a basis would be fair right an proper. If it is a fixed cost then the customer / user / citizen should have every expectation of being able to accrue the benefits of this (within the law).

Thats my view anyway

And you are perfectly entitled to it. As I have said, however, I think there are factors other than cost of provision that can legitimately affect the price of a product.

Begging your pardon, now I'm writing essays too ...

[downquark1]

It is really enraging when companies do this. The website www.breathe.com used to give free text message, no registration required. This in it's self just shows how cheap it is. But the companies soon figured out they can charge large amounts of money for the service and they haven't looked back since.


This is definately a step in the wrong direction.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by erol

So you remove 60% of the 'alledged' illegal traffic.

Do you think that internet average usage will not continue to grow at an exponential rate, as it has done to date?

Do you really think that ISP/telcos/cablecos will not just load more users onto the infrastructure untill the congestion levels are exactly as they were before you removed the 60% ?

If service providers load more users on they will get the extra revenue from those users which can be utilised to maintain and improve the networks. Using the 60% figure mentioned they could probably increase their revenue by 150% before their services were any worse than they are now and if they were reinvesting this additional revenue this percentage increase in revenue would be even higher.

[erol]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

How do you equate the above to the pricing of telephone services which to me are an even more vital utility than the internet. I know that there are various talk schemes about but there is no catch all fixed price telephone service.

First of voice telephony is much more 'price incremental' than internet access is. This is because voice telphony is still dominated by a 'circuit switched' architecture and not a packet switched one.

Having said that fixed price telephony does exist for local and national calls now. If and when VoIP becaomes common then ultimately fixed price voice to anywhere in the world will be commercialy viable and possible - provided the telco's do not manage to have their commercial interests placed above those of the more important 'social' interest of all of us.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

How do you equate the above to the pricing of telephone services which to me are an even more vital utility than the internet. I know that there are various talk schemes about but there is no catch all fixed price telephone service.

Remember, telephone calls can only be recieved/made one at a time. Internet activity can be any number of things combined.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by erol

First of voice telephony is much more 'price incremental' than internet access is. This is because voice telphony is still dominated by a 'circuit switched' architecture and not a packet switched one.

Having said that fixed price telephony does exist for local and national calls now. If and when VoIP becaomes common then ultimately fixed price voice to anywhere in the world will be commercialy viable and possible - provided the telco's do not manage to have their commercial interests placed above those of the more important 'social' interest of all of us.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Look at the pricing of NTL telephony for example. They charge 20p per minute for calls to France unless you are on their international plan when it is only 5p. Another company Call 18866 can give you the same call for 1p per minute and even calls to Australia, New zealand and USA and USA mobiles are only 1p per minute.

Yes, fixed price telephony does exist for SOME local and national calls but there is NO catch all fixed price option like the broadband pricing model that you advocate.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Look at the pricing of NTL telephony for example. They charge 20p per minute for calls to France unless you are on their international plan when it is only 5p. Another company Call 18866 can give you the same call for 1p per minute and even calls to Australia, New zealand and USA and USA mobiles are only 1p per minute.

Yes, fixed price telephony does exist for SOME local and national calls but there is NO catch all fixed price option like the broadband pricing model that you advocate.

Yes, but NTL are charged more for international calls, the internet cost is uniform.

[erol]

Originally Posted by towny

Petrol tax is proportionately harsher on lower income earners but that has never stopped successive Governments from using it as a means of trying to control traffic levels. Nevertheless, free or very cheap web access is becoming more and more available through public libraries and the like.

Each car user creates 'external costs' in polution and other effects. If car use had not polution effects, and if roads could be made to carry 2x as much traffic year on year, for the same cost and if increased road usage was growing at a smaller rate than this, then yes taxing usage to reduce it would be madness. Just as it is with internet access.

Originally Posted by towny

Heavy users on the same UBR as me make it more likely that when I want to use the net, it will perform poorly. I understand perfectly well that they will also feel the effects of this, but I'm not worried about that - they are the authors of their own misfortune. There is a cost associated with their network-jamming activities, even if that cost is only my time, your time and their time spent waiting. They need to have some visibility of that cost, even if their activities are legitimate. And I am unconvinced that the majority of heavy usage is legitimate in any case.

This just sounds like 'thier usage effects me but my usage does not effect anyone else'. Your usage is 'valid' and theirs is not - whatever they might be doing.

Originally Posted by towny

The online economy, as far as I am aware, generates a lot of cash from online sales. Visiting a web site to buy online requires very little bandwidth, so increasing charges for heavy users would not affect this. Could you post an example of how increasing the cost of heavy bandwidth usage among domestic users would adversely impact the economy?

And you are perfectly entitled to it. As I have said, however, I think there are factors other than cost of provision that can legitimately affect the price of a product.
[/QUOTE]

BB impact on the UK economy is about much more than 'online sales'. Just as the importance of other transport systems is about much more than money raised in bus fares etc. It is an 'enabler'. Allowing people access to education, training and much more besides. It enables companies to be more efficent. I could go on and on. This is why the EU is looking to have it deemed a 'service of genral economic interest' like transport and other infrastructure and serivces.

Originally Posted by towny

Begging your pardon, now I'm writing essays too ...

No need to beg my pardon for writing essays as I never expressed any problem with it. Begging my pardon for your apparent hypocrasy is another matter

Originally Posted by erol

So you remove 60% of the 'alledged' illegal traffic.

Do you know anyone that uses Kazaa/WinMX/Bearshare (all the popular ones, where most of the traffic is being used) for legitimate reasons?

I'm not suggesting all P2P traffic is illegal. I've used other P2P services (not commerically available stuff, but private companies P2P stuff) for legitamate work purposes. But I'm not gonna be naieve in thinking that people aren't just constantly downloading illegal materials!

I know several "friends" who got 600kbps installed the other month and have constantly saturated their connection since getting it downloading videos and music.

As to your point:

Fair to those that are 'heavy users' and NOT engaged in illegal activity?

Well, individuals who dump x amount of rubbish have to pay to dispose of it at the local tip, whereas us that dispose the odd bag get it for free. Heavy users of anything are always charged more. For example, why do I pay £50 more than your average person for my mobile phone contract? Because I use it heavily.

When you use things more than everyone else you expect to pay more. This is not an ideal world, remember!

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Yes, but NTL are charged more for international calls, the internet cost is uniform.

NTL are a major telephony provider, call 18866 are not, they just buy carriage from major suppliers. I would assume that call 18866 make a profit out of their international calls so what must NTL be making and why the differential in the NTL prices of 20p per minute and 5p per minute for the same call.

Is internet cost uniform? Do you know the costs involved in routing internet requests?

[downquark1]

Heavy users of anything are always charged more. For example, why do I pay £50 more than your average person for my mobile phone contract? Because I use it heavily.

that's how the dial-up system worked, but they promised that broadband would bring a single charge. The problem is not so much the policy but more of the fact they are reversing a previous change because it have become inconveniant.

People have been saying for years, "Oh I'll get broadband when it's cheaper" well at this rate it's going to be more expensive by the time they get around to it

[andygrif]

I'm coming into this discussion a little late, but the thread did make interesting reading.

I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on in relation to flat rate vs pay what you use. The things I'm considering are:

Internet take up - we need to speed up roll out to the masses of broadband internet connections. This will be impeded with limitations on what you download, unpredictable costs etc.

However, important as the internet is (and as much as I hate these silly analogies which bear no relation to a unique product, e.g cars) they did it with water meters, and water is a matter is a matter of life and death.

Another angle is that internet providers buy bandwidth based on useage. However, why is this? If I am an ISp and I pay for 1TB link, surely I should be negotiating a price based on using the 1TB, not if I use half of it. If it is good enough for the ISP's to charge their customers on this bases, why don't they negotiate the same deal with their providers?

I think the bottom line for most people can be summed up pretty easily - neither for nor against, as long as it works well and doesn't cost any more a month.

Product progression. Broadband may get more expensive, but you'll get a faster service.

So you think all users should pay the same? From the old boy who collects his email every day to the warez kids who saturate their upstream all day?