4 ms·

I just wish it had peak/non-peak pricing. Even something as basic as free nights.

MBlume 12y ago
Or better yet, some sort of dynamic pricing when, say, you're on a crowded subway platform. You'd really want solid software integration for that, though, so the user isn't unpleasantly surprised by it.
- mentat 12y ago
  Type "2.5" to accept surge pricing.
  - eli 12y ago
    But I want my email and push notifications to happen the background without paying extra. Unless it's been a while, then I probably am willing to pay extra. Seems awfully tricky.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      Doesn't seem too tricky to me. Email and push notifications are almost zero data; go ahead and let them pay full price. Download updates and podcasts at 4AM. Maybe ask before doing interactive high-bandwidth things, depends on user preference.
- rhino369 12y ago
  I think customers would be pissed about never knowing when data will suddenly surge in price, even if you warn them. It would also kill the user experience. And stuff like background updates and push messages would be a pain. I'm sure the usage pattern is steady enough to make a pretty good model.
- saidajigumi 12y ago
  I have a lot of problems with surge pricing in general, not the least of which (in this example) is that it creates two classes of 'net users: those with enough disposable income to probably not care about surge pricing ever and those for whom it's a burden. Yes, that's a reflection on larger societal issues, but it's still there. Worse, surge pricing is often a distraction for nearly everyone. IMO, it's not ethical to implement surge pricing without allowing a user some mechanism to opt-out of it and to understand why they aren't getting bandwidth at that time. But having put that stake in the ground, the UX now requires that the user waste mental decision energy on ... business bullshit[1]. Last not far from least, it aligns the incentives of carriers against providing enough coverage to handle capacity. We're learning how to handle higher density wireless scenarios (cf. articles on stadium and other heavy-use event network systems). Would we rather incentivize trickle-down of these systems into high-traffic public areas (e.g. commuter zones), or just further line the pockets of a few near-monopolist carriers at our own expense? [1] This relates to why users rightly don't like metered billing -- it creates decision pressure. A payment structure that alleviates use of decision energy is a value add.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    How do you feel about services that require $650 phones? Also, discounts when network utilization is low?
    - untog 12y ago
      How do you feel about services that require $650 phones? Broadly speaking, few do. There are a lot of cheap Android phones out there.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        This service requires a $650 phone.
        derefr 12y ago
        It does for now. Whether or not the tech filters down into other products, this exact phone won't still be $650 in two years.
grrowl 12y ago
In the context of the wider Net Neutrality conversation (Connectiveness Neutrality?), I'm glad it's so simple. $20 + $10/gb across the board is very sane, fair, and makes no assumptions about who you are, how you're using it, or what you're using it for.
- shkkmo 12y ago
  I do think we eventually need to move to more flexible pricing though. Not all data is equally cheap to transit (i.e. runs on infrastructure of the same capital and maintenance costs). Commoditizing wireless access and allowing flexible pricing would allow more competition and innovation in how that wireless access is provided. It is going to requi

Or better yet, some sort of dynamic pricing when, say, you're on a crowded subway platform. You'd really want solid software integration for that, though, so the user isn't unpleasantly surprised by it.

mentat 12y ago
Type "2.5" to accept surge pricing.
- eli 12y ago
  But I want my email and push notifications to happen the background without paying extra. Unless it's been a while, then I probably am willing to pay extra. Seems awfully tricky.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Doesn't seem too tricky to me. Email and push notifications are almost zero data; go ahead and let them pay full price. Download updates and podcasts at 4AM. Maybe ask before doing interactive high-bandwidth things, depends on user preference.
rhino369 12y ago
I think customers would be pissed about never knowing when data will suddenly surge in price, even if you warn them. It would also kill the user experience. And stuff like background updates and push messages would be a pain. I'm sure the usage pattern is steady enough to make a pretty good model.
saidajigumi 12y ago
I have a lot of problems with surge pricing in general, not the least of which (in this example) is that it creates two classes of 'net users: those with enough disposable income to probably not care about surge pricing ever and those for whom it's a burden. Yes, that's a reflection on larger societal issues, but it's still there. Worse, surge pricing is often a distraction for nearly everyone. IMO, it's not ethical to implement surge pricing without allowing a user some mechanism to opt-out of it and to understand why they aren't getting bandwidth at that time. But having put that stake in the ground, the UX now requires that the user waste mental decision energy on ... business bullshit[1]. Last not far from least, it aligns the incentives of carriers against providing enough coverage to handle capacity. We're learning how to handle higher density wireless scenarios (cf. articles on stadium and other heavy-use event network systems). Would we rather incentivize trickle-down of these systems into high-traffic public areas (e.g. commuter zones), or just further line the pockets of a few near-monopolist carriers at our own expense? [1] This relates to why users rightly don't like metered billing -- it creates decision pressure. A payment structure that alleviates use of decision energy is a value add.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  How do you feel about services that require $650 phones? Also, discounts when network utilization is low?
  - untog 12y ago
    How do you feel about services that require $650 phones? Broadly speaking, few do. There are a lot of cheap Android phones out there.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      This service requires a $650 phone.
      - derefr 12y ago
        It does for now. Whether or not the tech filters down into other products, this exact phone won't still be $650 in two years.

grrowl 12y ago

In the context of the wider Net Neutrality conversation (Connectiveness Neutrality?), I'm glad it's so simple. $20 + $10/gb across the board is very sane, fair, and makes no assumptions about who you are, how you're using it, or what you're using it for.

shkkmo 12y ago
I do think we eventually need to move to more flexible pricing though. Not all data is equally cheap to transit (i.e. runs on infrastructure of the same capital and maintenance costs). Commoditizing wireless access and allowing flexible pricing would allow more competition and innovation in how that wireless access is provided. It is going to requi