3 ms·

How does changing plans from unlimited to metered data make them more 'capitalistic'? An example of making things more capitalistic would be to make illegal th

How does changing plans from unlimited to metered data make them more 'capitalistic'? An example of making things more capitalistic would be to make illegal the municipal contracts granting monopolies on last mile service.

cobookman 12y ago
In an unlimited system, a customer which uses 10GB/month grosses the company the same amount as a customer who uses 1TB/month. Going to a metered system, people who use more bandwidth are charged more. Technically ISPs don't pay for bandwidth, but for a 'x' GBps link. But our electric companies do the same, they pay for 'x' Kw/h (a power plant can only output so much electricity per hour). >...make illegal the municipal contracts granting monopolies on last mile service. Thats a very hard peice of legislation to pass. I'm not even sure if Google Fiber would agree to this. Even if this legislation passed, would that fix our net neutrality rules? Moving to a metered system gets rid of most of the ISPs arguments against net neutrality....all of them except having a company pay for your bandwidth.
- vidarh 12y ago
  > Thats a very hard peice of legislation to pass. That may be so. But all of Europe manage to go from monopoly telcos to a system with guaranteed access for ISPs to the last mile. > Moving to a metered system gets rid of most of the ISPs arguments against net neutrality.. In my experience, from having run an ISP: It also massively curtails usage, to the extent that it is a net negative for the ISPs because users become less dependent on you, yet don't pay you as much. There's a reason why ISPs went to "unlimited" contracts: If users have to meter their usage, they tend to turn out to be willing to pay less, because their internet connection is suddenly something where they have to think about the money they spend from day to day, rather than something that's just a fixed "thing" in the background they don't think about. People are willing to pay extra for "unlimited" to not have to think about it, and when they don't think about it, they don't cancel.
  - cobookman 12y ago
    >It also massively curtails usage, to the extent that it is a net negative for the ISPs I think that's the reason why Comcast wants to do the 300GB 'unlimited' with a $10/50GB overage charge. As they get the best of both worlds. The issue with having a 'hybrid' plan is that to Comcast's finance department they still view it as a fixed gross per customer. Where-as with metered usage, the finance department would hopefully realize that the bigger the pipes the greater the potential for $$$. In regards to peering, Comcast currently has no incentive to upgrade there peering exchange points. But in a metered system, they have a lot of money to gain for upgrading the exchange points. Giving level 3 and Comcast incentives to upgrade peering exchanges. (Today its only Level 3 who benefits).

cobookman 12y ago

In an unlimited system, a customer which uses 10GB/month grosses the company the same amount as a customer who uses 1TB/month. Going to a metered system, people who use more bandwidth are charged more. Technically ISPs don't pay for bandwidth, but for a 'x' GBps link. But our electric companies do the same, they pay for 'x' Kw/h (a power plant can only output so much electricity per hour). >...make illegal the municipal contracts granting monopolies on last mile service. Thats a very hard peice of legislation to pass. I'm not even sure if Google Fiber would agree to this. Even if this legislation passed, would that fix our net neutrality rules? Moving to a metered system gets rid of most of the ISPs arguments against net neutrality....all of them except having a company pay for your bandwidth.

vidarh 12y ago
> Thats a very hard peice of legislation to pass. That may be so. But all of Europe manage to go from monopoly telcos to a system with guaranteed access for ISPs to the last mile. > Moving to a metered system gets rid of most of the ISPs arguments against net neutrality.. In my experience, from having run an ISP: It also massively curtails usage, to the extent that it is a net negative for the ISPs because users become less dependent on you, yet don't pay you as much. There's a reason why ISPs went to "unlimited" contracts: If users have to meter their usage, they tend to turn out to be willing to pay less, because their internet connection is suddenly something where they have to think about the money they spend from day to day, rather than something that's just a fixed "thing" in the background they don't think about. People are willing to pay extra for "unlimited" to not have to think about it, and when they don't think about it, they don't cancel.
- cobookman 12y ago
  >It also massively curtails usage, to the extent that it is a net negative for the ISPs I think that's the reason why Comcast wants to do the 300GB 'unlimited' with a $10/50GB overage charge. As they get the best of both worlds. The issue with having a 'hybrid' plan is that to Comcast's finance department they still view it as a fixed gross per customer. Where-as with metered usage, the finance department would hopefully realize that the bigger the pipes the greater the potential for $$$. In regards to peering, Comcast currently has no incentive to upgrade there peering exchange points. But in a metered system, they have a lot of money to gain for upgrading the exchange points. Giving level 3 and Comcast incentives to upgrade peering exchanges. (Today its only Level 3 who benefits).