5 ms·

>How many people really want the services they use to be priced like AWS and pay separately a few cents for each time they use any tiny component? Please corre

>How many people really want the services they use to be priced like AWS and pay separately a few cents for each time they use any tiny component? Please correct me if I'm reading this incorrectly, but you're suggesting that most people don't want to pay for exactly how much they use a service?

spindritf 14y ago
That's exactly what I'm saying. Most people, regardless of what they claim, want to buy the feeling of safety that comes with the assurance that they'll be able to use the service when they need to. Obviously, for as little as possible. That's the secret of those "unlimited", and heavily oversubscribed, plans, hosting services, all you can eat buffets, medical insurance that includes a subscription to $8/mo birth-control pills... All those companies capitalize on "being there for you".
- Firehed 14y ago
  And yet nobody seems to complain that all of our other utilities are charged based on usage: electricity, gas, water, landline phones (remember those?). I'm aware that it's a lot harder to judge data use than it is for water, so there's a reasonable objection to usage-based billing for data services. That being said, the only reason I've gone out of my way to keep my grandfathered unlimited cell phone data is because the blocks of pre-metered data a) are hugely overpriced, b) excessively penalized for overages, c) not tiered in a way that's relevant to real-world use, and d) seem to increase in cost over time rather than decrease, despite plummeting costs for the provider (while usage patterns increase) The unlimited psychology is utter nonsense. None of these services[1] cut you off completely for going over your allotment, they just charge punitive rates. They're still "there for you", as long as you're ok getting reamed in the wallet. [1] except prepaid phone minutes, but that's because there's no card on file to charge for overages.
- manaskarekar 14y ago
  I disagree. The thing that "unlimited" plans help you cope with are the sticker shock. Oversubcribed services, such as data plans, count on someone not using their data that they're paying for. So if you use 200 MB of your 2GB plan, you paid for someone else's data. If the carriers start charging per MB what they deem profitable, the user who doesn't use as much bandwidth will save money while the one who uses more will have to pay more. I understand carriers need a certain guarantee on sales figures to continue investing in infrastructure/upgrades etc but there are other services that have worked great without this model. Then you also have your QoS argument. Why should I pay the same amount for data if I have to put up with slow page loads on my smartphone because ten other people around me are streaming Netflix? So basically, this is just marketing bullshit. To abstract away the real cost of the service so the sticker shock doesn't put you off. Also, the pay in advance model urges you to use a service more, where as pay as you use model promotes need based usage. This will perhaps, to some degree, promote less 'wastage' for any service as well. Ever had to 'burn off' your cell phone minutes because, 'I've paid for it anyway.' I know I would save a ton of money if they just charged me for what I used even if they raised their rates per unit for any given service.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    The argument for unlimited is to remove marginal tension which is a barrier to increased usage. If everybody thinks "but won't that be expensive!?" before installing an app or watching a video or clicking a link, adoption growth slows down. This is obviously directly in the interest of telcos - the more people signing up to "unlimited" dataplans, the better for them. Especially if they're light users. But it's also good for the rest of us, as it creates pressure to build out capacity. Incidentally, I'm on a metered plan. My provider analyses my usage each month and advises me on the best "bundle" to get. One month, the recommendation was "none at all" - paying for my data metered would be cheaper than the cheapest bundle (I spend most of my time and data at home or in offices with wifi). This is GiffGaff (UK), highly recommended.

spindritf 14y ago

That's exactly what I'm saying. Most people, regardless of what they claim, want to buy the feeling of safety that comes with the assurance that they'll be able to use the service when they need to. Obviously, for as little as possible. That's the secret of those "unlimited", and heavily oversubscribed, plans, hosting services, all you can eat buffets, medical insurance that includes a subscription to $8/mo birth-control pills... All those companies capitalize on "being there for you".

Firehed 14y ago
And yet nobody seems to complain that all of our other utilities are charged based on usage: electricity, gas, water, landline phones (remember those?). I'm aware that it's a lot harder to judge data use than it is for water, so there's a reasonable objection to usage-based billing for data services. That being said, the only reason I've gone out of my way to keep my grandfathered unlimited cell phone data is because the blocks of pre-metered data a) are hugely overpriced, b) excessively penalized for overages, c) not tiered in a way that's relevant to real-world use, and d) seem to increase in cost over time rather than decrease, despite plummeting costs for the provider (while usage patterns increase) The unlimited psychology is utter nonsense. None of these services[1] cut you off completely for going over your allotment, they just charge punitive rates. They're still "there for you", as long as you're ok getting reamed in the wallet. [1] except prepaid phone minutes, but that's because there's no card on file to charge for overages.
manaskarekar 14y ago
I disagree. The thing that "unlimited" plans help you cope with are the sticker shock. Oversubcribed services, such as data plans, count on someone not using their data that they're paying for. So if you use 200 MB of your 2GB plan, you paid for someone else's data. If the carriers start charging per MB what they deem profitable, the user who doesn't use as much bandwidth will save money while the one who uses more will have to pay more. I understand carriers need a certain guarantee on sales figures to continue investing in infrastructure/upgrades etc but there are other services that have worked great without this model. Then you also have your QoS argument. Why should I pay the same amount for data if I have to put up with slow page loads on my smartphone because ten other people around me are streaming Netflix? So basically, this is just marketing bullshit. To abstract away the real cost of the service so the sticker shock doesn't put you off. Also, the pay in advance model urges you to use a service more, where as pay as you use model promotes need based usage. This will perhaps, to some degree, promote less 'wastage' for any service as well. Ever had to 'burn off' your cell phone minutes because, 'I've paid for it anyway.' I know I would save a ton of money if they just charged me for what I used even if they raised their rates per unit for any given service.
- mseebach 14y ago
  The argument for unlimited is to remove marginal tension which is a barrier to increased usage. If everybody thinks "but won't that be expensive!?" before installing an app or watching a video or clicking a link, adoption growth slows down. This is obviously directly in the interest of telcos - the more people signing up to "unlimited" dataplans, the better for them. Especially if they're light users. But it's also good for the rest of us, as it creates pressure to build out capacity. Incidentally, I'm on a metered plan. My provider analyses my usage each month and advises me on the best "bundle" to get. One month, the recommendation was "none at all" - paying for my data metered would be cheaper than the cheapest bundle (I spend most of my time and data at home or in offices with wifi). This is GiffGaff (UK), highly recommended.