7 ms·

Paying for electricity per kWh is just fleecing the customers, too, then? After all, the problem is simultaneous usage, not "heavy" usage as in consuming a lot

Paying for electricity per kWh is just fleecing the customers, too, then? After all, the problem is simultaneous usage, not "heavy" usage as in consuming a lot of electricity each month. I mean, seriously? Just because it is possible for someone to buy a 1 TB package and then use it all on the first day of each month ... doesn't mean that most average people don't have relatively predictable usage patterns and relatively constant use throughout the month, does it?

rosser 8y ago
Electricity has a real per-kWh cost to produce. Packets have, at best, a nominal per-mbps cost to transmit.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > Electricity has a real per-kWh cost to produce. Like, what? What do you consider a "real" cost of producing a kWh?
  - rosser 8y ago
    The all-in costs of whatever you had to burn (literally or not) to produce that kWh? Packets do not have a meaningful marginal cost. Metering is a crap model.
    - hueving 8y ago
      That cost is only a small part of a power plant. Most of the cost is amortizing the build of the plant, just like an ISP. This is especially true with wind, solar, and nuclear.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      > The all-in costs of whatever you had to burn (literally or not) to produce that kWh? OK, so in the case of wind and solar power, what is burned (not literally) is hydrogen (being fused into helium), which noone is paying for, so there is zero cost for what is being burned to produce each kWh of wind or solar power. So, if you are being billed per kWh for wind or solar power, that's fleecing the customer then? Also, for coal, the coal per kWh costs about 3 cents, you pay at least three times that for electricity, usually more--is that also fleecing the customer? > Packets do not have a meaningful marginal cost. Metering is a crap model. What do you mean by "meaningful"? I mean, either they have a marginal cost, or they don't right?
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > So, if you are being billed per kWh for wind or solar power, that's fleecing the customer then? At any time other than a load emergency, yes. The ideal pricing mechanism for a 100% renewable grid would be to pay a flat rate based on your service size (100 amp, 200 amp, etc.) and then get paid by the grid for dropping your load when the grid is overloaded. That would give the power company the incentive to prevent overloads by providing adequate capacity. > Also, for coal, the coal per kWh costs about 3 cents, you pay at least three times that for electricity, usually more--is that also fleecing the customer? That price doesn't include externalities. It can make sense to use pricing to discourage usage of resources with otherwise unpriced negative externalities. > What do you mean by "meaningful"? I mean, either they have a marginal cost, or they don't right? Network equipment may use more electricity when forwarding packets than not. But when this is in the amount of pennies per TB of data, the accounting overhead of keeping track of it would exceed the measured dollar amount.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > At any time other than a load emergency, yes. The ideal pricing mechanism for a 100% renewable grid would be to pay a flat rate based on your service size (100 amp, 200 amp, etc.) and then get paid by the grid for dropping your load when the grid is overloaded. That would give the power company the incentive to prevent overloads by providing adequate capacity. So, do I understand you correctly that someone who uses their electric oven (so, ~ 3 kW) once a day for half an hour but uses no other electricity should pay the same total as someone who runs some 3 kW machine 24/7, unless the grid is overloaded, in which case the latter pays less? > That price doesn't include externalities. It can make sense to use pricing to discourage usage of resources with otherwise unpriced negative externalities. Except that's not what is happening here? > Network equipment may use more electricity when forwarding packets than not. But when this is in the amount of pennies per TB of data, the accounting overhead of keeping track of it would exceed the measured dollar amount. Except that that's a minor part of the marginal cost of moving a packet?
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
- gbear605 8y ago
  Renewable energy is making that less the case
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
shmerl 8y ago
How much are they paying in PON networks? Users are even paying the bills for their ONTs' power usage themselves. Data caps are without any question fleecing. Not a need driven idea.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  How much is who paying who for what?

rosser 8y ago

Electricity has a real per-kWh cost to produce. Packets have, at best, a nominal per-mbps cost to transmit.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> Electricity has a real per-kWh cost to produce. Like, what? What do you consider a "real" cost of producing a kWh?
- rosser 8y ago
  The all-in costs of whatever you had to burn (literally or not) to produce that kWh? Packets do not have a meaningful marginal cost. Metering is a crap model.
  - hueving 8y ago
    That cost is only a small part of a power plant. Most of the cost is amortizing the build of the plant, just like an ISP. This is especially true with wind, solar, and nuclear.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > The all-in costs of whatever you had to burn (literally or not) to produce that kWh? OK, so in the case of wind and solar power, what is burned (not literally) is hydrogen (being fused into helium), which noone is paying for, so there is zero cost for what is being burned to produce each kWh of wind or solar power. So, if you are being billed per kWh for wind or solar power, that's fleecing the customer then? Also, for coal, the coal per kWh costs about 3 cents, you pay at least three times that for electricity, usually more--is that also fleecing the customer? > Packets do not have a meaningful marginal cost. Metering is a crap model. What do you mean by "meaningful"? I mean, either they have a marginal cost, or they don't right?
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > So, if you are being billed per kWh for wind or solar power, that's fleecing the customer then? At any time other than a load emergency, yes. The ideal pricing mechanism for a 100% renewable grid would be to pay a flat rate based on your service size (100 amp, 200 amp, etc.) and then get paid by the grid for dropping your load when the grid is overloaded. That would give the power company the incentive to prevent overloads by providing adequate capacity. > Also, for coal, the coal per kWh costs about 3 cents, you pay at least three times that for electricity, usually more--is that also fleecing the customer? That price doesn't include externalities. It can make sense to use pricing to discourage usage of resources with otherwise unpriced negative externalities. > What do you mean by "meaningful"? I mean, either they have a marginal cost, or they don't right? Network equipment may use more electricity when forwarding packets than not. But when this is in the amount of pennies per TB of data, the accounting overhead of keeping track of it would exceed the measured dollar amount.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > At any time other than a load emergency, yes. The ideal pricing mechanism for a 100% renewable grid would be to pay a flat rate based on your service size (100 amp, 200 amp, etc.) and then get paid by the grid for dropping your load when the grid is overloaded. That would give the power company the incentive to prevent overloads by providing adequate capacity. So, do I understand you correctly that someone who uses their electric oven (so, ~ 3 kW) once a day for half an hour but uses no other electricity should pay the same total as someone who runs some 3 kW machine 24/7, unless the grid is overloaded, in which case the latter pays less? > That price doesn't include externalities. It can make sense to use pricing to discourage usage of resources with otherwise unpriced negative externalities. Except that's not what is happening here? > Network equipment may use more electricity when forwarding packets than not. But when this is in the amount of pennies per TB of data, the accounting overhead of keeping track of it would exceed the measured dollar amount. Except that that's a minor part of the marginal cost of moving a packet?
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
gbear605 8y ago
Renewable energy is making that less the case
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

shmerl 8y ago

How much are they paying in PON networks? Users are even paying the bills for their ONTs' power usage themselves. Data caps are without any question fleecing. Not a need driven idea.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
How much is who paying who for what?