News - Pay for broadband per megabyte says Verizon CTO

[aidanjt]

Think of it this way, if you had to pay a flat fee to top up your car at the petrol station, would you be happy with that?.. I'm betting you wouldn't. And it would provide no incentive at all to not drive around in a humvee.

[nichomach]

I don't know about you - but I'm only charged for download traffic, which constitues by far the greatest proportion of data transfers.
Are you in the US ? It does sound quite uncivilised !

No, I'm in the UK, I just know that their mobile companies charge for receiving calls as well as making them. Are you with some form of metered broadband provider already? Who is that, please? Most providers charge a fee per month for "up to" X download speed and "up to" Y upload speed.

[mercyground]

suicide to implelment.

any isp that brings that in over here will have ppl leaving in droves.

[watercooled]

I agree with everyone saying it's commercial suicide - anyone with any idea what happened would most likely leave and join another company, I know I wouldn't accept it - they would lose millions and go bankrupt. A terrible move for any company.

[badass]

Looks to me like he's proposing a mobile phone like model TBH.
I don't see why heavy users (myself included) should be subsidised by lighter users.

Verizon's plan would, in effect, stifle the net and put lower income families at a massive disadvantage when it came to digital equality. As if the digital divide isn't already big enough

How is that at all true? With a flat fee model, everyone pays the same, even light users. The barrier to entry is high. Poor people cannot afford internet access at all. With a model where the user pays for usage, the barrier to entry is much lower and more people can afford internet access. They'll just have to make sxure they don't over use it.

As said earlier in this thread, imagine if we were charged a fixed fee per refill in the petrol station? I doubt people would like that.

[watercooled]

Yeah but Internet traffic isn't a physical resource or anything that actually costs money or is likely to run out - yeah it costs money to maintain equipment but that's coped with OK now. It's just the ISP getting very greedy - there's nothing wrong with the current model - you can get a bandwidth capped package ie something like 4GB per month at something like 2Mbps for very cheap - you pay more if you want unlimited. It's like water - if you think you are being charged too much you can get a water meter fitted and pay for only what you use, if you use a lot you will save more paying a fixed fee...

[nichomach]

The barrier to entry is high. Poor people cannot afford internet access at all. With a model where the user pays for usage, the barrier to entry is much lower and more people can afford internet access. They'll just have to make sxure they don't over use it.

Respectfully, given the availability of very cheap broadband (OK with a low FUP limit) from providers like Tiscali or O2 (certainly if you're already a mobile customer) and others, and free setup, modem/router etc, I'd argue that entry cost isn't really a barrier, or if it is, the barrier entry cost is the cost of a PC/laptop. Further, I'd argue that the increasingly draconian traffic management applied by ISPs to limit usage on even premium broadband packages means that the "poor lightweight users subsidising bandwidth hogs" argument is increasingly difficult to make.

[Arthran]

with £10 a month cable broadband, the barrier for entry is low.

I'll be honest, this goes against the way the internet is built atm, with a metered service things like Youtube wouldnt have taken off.

New services like Onlive would simply be impossible for most households on a metered service.
How many of you guys remember the days of 56k connections? I do and this is essentially what we would be going back to, connect only when you need something, forget to disconnect and find you've run up a big bill.

On top of that, a large majority of us now use steam or xbox live. If i was to corrupt my steam directory and ask steam to re-download all of my steam games, that's about 30gig! what about DLC on my xbox? I'm paying for broadband, and paying to buy content on the xbox, why should i then have to pay again to get that content onto the xbox?

the whole system these days has been built in such a way that the end user doesn't think about bandwidth and what they use, implement metered services and companies like valve and Microsoft would lose a ton, let alone the loss of service to us consumers.

I'm also one of those who have a smartphone with a lot of web enabled features, i also have a contract that charges £3+ per mb! so i know what its like to have a device that can do useful things online, and have to constantly worry about my bandwidth usage. And let me tell you, it is a ridiculous state of affairs! It costs me use the gps on my phone, as it connects to 3g to update maps, it costs me to download updates to doftware (yes i know there's an easier way :-P).
Sure I'm changing to an unlimited data contract in a month, but for now its ridiculous.

Moving to metered bandwidth will hamper the growth of the web, and is frankly ridiculous. Bandwidth is an unlimited resource, not a limited resource. Yes the infrastructure needs improvement etc, but in this country we've all just had a new 50p a month tax to help pay for that haven't we? I'd also happily pay an extra few quid a month on my broadband to get a lower contention ratio if it was possible.

I work on the net, and if this was implemented in this country, I'd probably go out of business.

[Phage]

with £10 a month cable broadband, the barrier for entry is low..

Not available in all areas. But I take the point.

I'll be honest, this goes against the way the internet is built atm, with a metered service things like Youtube wouldnt have taken off. ..

What the hell ? Against how it's built ? The architecture of the network has nothing to do with it.
The service IS metered for most. Data caps, traffic management etc. The interesting thing is that it took off anyway. Praise for video compression indeed.

New services like Onlive would simply be impossible for most households on a metered service...

Not something everyone uses...but see my reply above.

How many of you guys remember the days of 56k connections? I do and this is essentially what we would be going back to, connect only when you need something, forget to disconnect and find you've run up a big bill....

Heh, I remember 14.4 being a big deal, and this is simply not true. Why would you run up a bill if no data is being transferred ? You're confusing it with your phone bill.

On top of that, a large majority of us now use steam or xbox live. If i was to corrupt my steam directory and ask steam to re-download all of my steam games, that's about 30gig! ....

Errr - backups ?

I'm paying for broadband, and paying to buy content on the xbox, why should i then have to pay again to get that content onto the xbox?.

Indeed. You are paying for broadband. This would not change. There is no suggestion of some third charge, it is merely a user pays billing model.

the whole system these days has been built in such a way that the end user doesn't think about bandwidth and what they use, implement metered services and companies like valve and Microsoft would lose a ton, let alone the loss of service to us consumers.

Again, not true. Most users have data caps.
What's your theory for this apparent loss of revenue to the corporate giants ?

Moving to metered bandwidth will hamper the growth of the web, and is frankly ridiculous. Bandwidth is an unlimited resource, not a limited resource. Yes the infrastructure needs improvement etc, but in this country we've all just had a new 50p a month tax to help pay for that haven't we? I'd also happily pay an extra few quid a month on my broadband to get a lower contention ratio if it was possible.

Why ? As said, most users are already data capped/mamaged/metered. If you want more you pay more.
Bandwidth is an unlimited resource ? Errrr, no. TANSTAAFL.

I work on the net, and if this was implemented in this country, I'd probably go out of business.

Do you work for the Daily Mail ?

[Arthran]

What the hell ? Against how it's built ? The architecture of the network has nothing to do with it.
The service IS metered for most. Data caps, traffic management etc. The interesting thing is that it took off anyway. Praise for video compression indeed.

My wording is poo, so appologies on that one. what i meant was less how its built from a architecture PoV, but from a usage PoV, every site these days has some form of flashing banner, has some form of video etc, the whole web 2.0 crap has been built so people become used to media heavy websites. the moment you implement metered bandwidth (lets not be under any delusion, ISP's will use this as an excuse to cut people's usage, they will work their figures in such a way that the same 30gig you may get now, will cost you more) is the moment people come to realise how media heavy the net is.

Not something everyone uses...but see my reply above.

true enough, but if we was on metered bandwidth and somebody came out with this service, nobody would want it. The amount of people who use services like last.fm or spotify who rely on unlimited bandwidth...

Heh, I remember 14.4 being a big deal, and this is simply not true. Why would you run up a bill if no data is being transferred ? You're confusing it with your phone bill.

Not sure if you've ever monitored your pc's bandwidth, but even idle it sends and receives alot of data.
In my house there are 2 pc's and a server, plus 2 consoles. Now all 3 windows machines constantly pull down windows updates, AV definition updates, game updates, e-mails program updates. If you accidentaly leave your pc connected the amount of programs that will auto connect to download information.

And lets face it, were not talking about people like you and me, who being here on Hexus means we have at least basic IT knowledge, we're talking about the average joe's, our parents, those kinds of users. who will soon find their bill skyrocket if they leave it connected as their pc's arent anywhere near as clean as ours would be.

Errr - backups ?

Yeah, i have them on my domain controller, but how many average gamers have backups of their games. then add in new purchases, systems like Direct2Drive, MMO client downloads etc.

Indeed. You are paying for broadband. This would not change. There is no suggestion of some third charge, it is merely a user pays billing model.

But it would, the existing system is pay for broadband, pay for DLC. Sure this system would have a low/no monthly charge for your connection, but lets face it, when you have to worry about your bandwidth your less likely to buy DLC.

Again, not true. Most users have data caps.

but at the same time, if you go over that cap, you get traffic shaped heavily, but you dont get cut off. the cap's are acceptable usage limits, not cutoffs. Metered bandwidth means you'd pay more.

What's your theory for this apparent loss of revenue to the corporate giants ?

Metered bandwdth will mean more people watching what they use the net for, will mean less people willing to use xbox live etc (not because it necesarrily costs more, althought i think it will. But more because of the mentality change. at the moment you pay your fixed fee and thats that, with metered you'd be thinking about what your doing, and you'd think "no, cant afford to play online, will cost too much"). Purchasing music online suddenly looks like a more costly prospect, even if it isnt it will feel it. This will mean less people pay for online services as people on metered bandwidth will feel they cant afford it.

Why ? As said, most users are already data capped/mamaged/metered. If you want more you pay more.

That's my point, if i could pay more for a better service i would. the answer isnt simply to meter everybody's usage, its to offer people a better service with a premium, and watch as people will pay for it.

Bandwidth is an unlimited resource ? Errrr, no. TANSTAAFL.

I was actually attempting to reference the difference between infinite goods and scarce goods

Bandwidth is an infinite good, the components in your PC are scarce goods. i didn't say that bandwidth should be free, not did i say i don't want to pay for it. BUT i firmly believe that the proposal of paying for bandwidth per mb is a very bad idea for the end user.

Do you work for the Daily Mail ?

No, i run several websites and do a lot of web based consultancy and remote IT support. If bandwidth was metered less people would come to my sites, less people would buy things from them and doing remote support for PC's? yeah that just wouldn't be financially feesable.

[Phage]

Arthran - Good points ! I'd like to argue more but I have to go beat up some accountants in Edinburgh right now, and this conversation would be better over a beer...

If you make it down to London on business or whatever, I think a Hexus beer o'clock could be organised.

[Arthran]

Arthran - Good points ! I'd like to argue more but I have to go beat up some accountants in Edinburgh right now, and this conversation would be better over a beer...

If you make it down to London on business or whatever, I think a Hexus beer o'clock could be organised.

sounds good :-P

i'll be in Watford in a few weeks time ;-)

[Georgy291]

im not a heavy user, typically about 5gig / month

but i think making a per mb fee is taking the piss. if you going to do that then make sure there is no spam on the internet at all. since i think its been released most of the internet trafic is adverts etc. Log in to say hotmail and i bet 3/4 goes in to loading flash ads etc. look on hexus now how many flash posters do you see here?

and no the service isnt going to go up at all, if it goes ahead bandwidth will be freed up, but then it will be instantly filled up with something like more ads?

have you lot not noticed your getting alot less adverts through your front door letter box?

[Saracen]

Think of it this way, if you had to pay a flat fee to top up your car at the petrol station, would you be happy with that?.. I'm betting you wouldn't. And it would provide no incentive at all to not drive around in a humvee.

Good analogy.

I'm in the "not seeing the problem with the principle" camp, like Scarlet Infidel, etc.

Where you have a one-size fits all pricing method, like "unlimited" broadband, and where you have heavy users and light users (and a range in-between) then the "average" user is paying more per unit than the heavy user, and is therefore, on marginal consumption, subsiding the heavy user.

And, as Aidan said, pricing by consumption is a method used to motivate people to consider what they consume - it's why water companies and the government want us all to switch to water meters .... to encourage people to consider what they use by making them pay for it.

And ditto petrol. If you want to drive a heavy petrol-using vehicle, and do loads of miles, you expect to pay for it. We take that for granted. And it's not all that long ago when we paid for our 'online' time by consumption ... in my case, a flat monthly fee for access to the CIX system, and the cost of phone calls. Or indeed, prior to that, just the cost of phone calls to access direct-connect BBSs (one of which I ran).

Personally, I see no problem at all with people paying according to their usage levels. Why should people using the net for email, doing their banking and a bit of web browsing be paying an "average" flat-rate for the bandwidth used by those downloading pirate movies 24/7?

Personally, I wouldn't mind betting I'd be better off, and so would a lot of light users. Of course, a place like HEXUS has a fairly high proportion of heavy users, and so as a group, may well not like this idea much. The only thing I see against it though, is that a flat rate does at least allow you to budget easily without wondering how much this month's online time is going to cost.

Of course, the devil is in the detail, and it depends exactly what packages were available and how they're structured. Is it purely a charge by use, or a small flat "service" fee and then a usage charge, for instance.

But I'll say one thing .... if a scheme was available where I got very high speed without a high flat charge, I'd go for it. I'd MUCH rather have breakneck speed when I do want to download something big, than a flat-rate monthly fee like I have now where I don't use it most of the time, resulting in fairly slow speeds when I do because the flat-rate charge for high speeds just aren't justified by my usage.

Oh, and it's make me think twice about what I do download, too. For instance, I'd download a new Linus ISO only if I was actually going to use it, rather than with the intention of using it and then not getting around to it before it gets superceded.

So in principle I like the sound of this idea. Heavy net users will loathe it though. So maybe both schemes should be available - a per-MB charge for light users, and a flat rate (reflecting wholesale bandwidth costs) for heavy ones .... without effective cross-subsidisation either way.



EDIT - Typo amended. That last line should have read "without effective cross-subsidisation", not "with" as my stupid keyboard typed it.

[Arthran]

So in principle I like the sound of this idea. Heavy net users will loathe it though. So maybe both schemes should be available - a per-MB charge for light users, and a flat rate (reflecting wholesale bandwidth costs) for heavy ones .... without effective cross-subsidisation either way.

I'd agree with that completely, my household would be considered a heavy net user, more than 1 hardcore gamer in the house plus i work online. But i know people who pay the same as me but hardly use their connection. they would benefit from a more restrictive but cheaper package.

[Saracen]

I'd agree with that completely, my household would be considered a heavy net user, more than 1 hardcore gamer in the house plus i work online. But i know people who pay the same as me but hardly use their connection. they would benefit from a more restrictive but cheaper package.

And it could be seen as a social enabler too .... allowing low volume (but perhaps high speed) net access to those that can't afford (or justify in these financially challenging times) a flat-rate that they don't make much use of.